[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:

>> Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate
>> overrides changes) to non-free/doc?  This would mean that the GFDL
>> documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but
>> distributed in binary form in the correct package.
> As a practical matter, it is not, AFAIK, possible (or at least, not
> acceptable) to create non-free binary packages from source packages in
> main, nor vice-versa.

Actually (as a practical matter) it currently is... but at some point,
I'll get bored and break it (deliberately).

>> Or does he have to remove the GFDL-infected documentation from the
>> tar file, thereby creating a Debian-native package and remove all
>> trace and

It doesn't need to be Debian-native in the sense of '.tar.gz'
vs. 'orig.tar.gz'.  'orig.tar.gz' doesn't have to mean pristine and
'orig.tar.gz' is almost always preferable to '.tar.gz'.

> As a question of principle, I also believe this is the correct
> practice because of the contract we've made stating that everything
> in our main archive is covered by the freedoms listed in the DFSG.



Reply to: