Re: DFSG status of petsc
On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 21:22 +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
> > But do we need to be pedantic about upstream pdf files?
> > Our petsc distribution would be in principle be improved if we were
> > to
> > include the pdf manuals.
> Yeah, I completely understand. Especially seeing as we now have
> like libreoffice-pdfimport. But the FTP masters have specifically
> (in their "Reject FAQ") that they will reject packages with
No worries. Thanks for the confirmation, Riley.
> What you could do is use libreoffice-pdfimport to create a source
> repack the tarball and regenerate the pdfs at buildtime.
I think philosophically this is suboptimal. If we're allowed to do
this, then the original pdf file essentially counts as the source code
and therefore the sourceless pdf should be permitted in the first
Incidentally, editing the pdf via libreoffice is completely successful
as far as editing content goes. But it loses the little extras, like
hyperlinks or the structured index.
> Alternatively, you could try to contact upstream to get these issues
> sorted out.
That would solve the problem, of course :)