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

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

> >>> Or, for the initial bootstrap, just take the generated C
> >>> files from an existing GT.M for the bootstrap.
> >> Since those *are* source code I wonder whether that might be
> >> compliant with DFSG.
> > It's source code, right.  It was created automatically by using DFSG
> > free software by the copyright holders.  I do not see any reason why
> > this should not be DFSG free.  So if the firles are even *there* and do
> > not need to be created, why not pointing us to a tarball / patch set
> > which enables building from plain source?
> [KSB2] Yes, as human readable source code - even if generated by a script 
> from a text file - it should be DFSG free.  But the devil's advocate 
> argument is that even if it is human readable C code, since it is 
> generated from a text file, is is not source code.  But if that works for 
> getting GT.M into the package, lets do it.

Ah, no, I do think that Debian is (sometimes) very picky but the above
would be unreasonable. After all it is not at all unreasonable to
state "I wrote that C code manually."

> However, those files are not part of the upstream source tarball, so to 
> get the files today, you have to build GT.M once.

But not necessarily on a Debian machine. It can be taken from *any*
(architecturally sufficiently compatible) GT.M install.

> Once you build GT.M once, the files are there and the bootstrap is
> accomplished.

The plan is to break the chicken-egg problem by using an egg
from elsewhere.

> Once we get the release out, I'll see about releasing an updated source 
> tarball with the generated files.  But that is a few weeks out at best.

I don't see a problem with waiting a few weeks or even months.

Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

Reply to: