Re: can a non-buildable part remain in source
Matthew Palmer (mpalmer@debian.org) wrote:
>
>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:32:03PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> I have a package that has an optional part that cannot presently be
>> built in main but ships a (java bytecode) binary in the tarball.
>> Policy prevents me from adding this to the binary debs, but my
>> understanding of policy is that I can keep it in the orig.tar.gz for the
>> sake of using an unchanged upstream tarball.
>> Is this correct?
>
>It depends on what the licence terms are for the binary. If that licence is
>DFSG-free, and you are complying with the licence without distributing the
>source (ie it's not a GPL-like "must give source" licence) then there's no
>problem. Debian can comply with that licence in it's current form, and can
>distribute the source package to it's mirrors and users without fear.
Well, the license is GPL and there is source and binary included in the tarball, so
licensewise this doesn't seem to be a problem, neither with legal distribution under
the license nor with respect to DFSG. The only problem is that the source cannot be
recompiled without additional tools (e.g. ant).
>I would urge you to sanitise your tarballs. It's a PITA to do (and note in
>the documentation), but it's the safest course of action for our users.
Well, if you think that's best, that is what I'll be doing.
(I'll do a gunzip, tar --delete, and gzip -9 as this seems to be the safest way of
doing so.)
Cheers
T.
Reply to: