>>>>> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Crane <seabass_debian@gmx.co.uk> writes:
Sebastian> Dear Tobias,
>> No, that is not how it works. It is not only nice to have. We
>> want the "preferred form of modification" in the package and a
>> binary blob is often not.
Sebastian> What would you say the preferred form of modification
Sebastian> should be for chess opening books?
I'd say that the DD sending a package through new needs to answer that
question based on the best interests of our users and the free software
community.
In different circumstances each of the answers you propose could be
correct.
Major factors in making that decision include what data is actually
available to the upstream author as well as how upstream has generally
chosen to make modifications.
If data is available to upstream but not to Debian that's a good sign
that we have a DFSG problem we cannot resolve.
As you point out, the question can sometimes be complicated.
In such complicated situations I'd expect the DD who is initially
sending a package through new to carefully consider and to explain the
preferred form for modification.
In the above I say DD rather than maintainer, because looking at these
sort of things is why initial uploads cannot be done by a DM.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature