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

Advice sought regarding binaries in upstream source



Dear Debian mentors

I am the co-maintainer for packages mindi and mondo which had bugs
#233606 and #233605 filed a while ago. These bugs where about the
packages containing binaries in the upstream source. This was true, the
binaries have been removed since and the bugs closed.

However, this means that we are currently not distributing the pristine
upstream sources of mindi and mondo, which I am not overly happy with.
(I am highlighting this fact by adding sub-versions to the upstream
versions in the package names.)

As I am about to package new upstream versions, I would like to seek
clarification on this:

The above bugs state 'Policy 2.2.1' as justification which is pretty
much catch all. I suppose the relevant point is DFSG compliance. While
the DFSG clearly states that all software has to come with code, I fail
to see how this would in general forbid to have binaries in the upstream
source file.

The situation is such that binaries in the upstream source package are
either irrelevant for the Debian package and such are not present in the
corresponding deb or they are being replaced with a separate deb that
then of course has its corresponding source package, i.e. comes with
full source.

Please note further that all binaries in the upstream source packages of
mindi and mondo come with licences that allow redistribution, so there
is definitely no legal issue. It all boils down to what the DFSG means
in terms of binaries in upstream sources - the mondo and mindi debs only
contain binaries that come with source code via the normal Debian
package mechanism.

I would very much welcome your help on this. Should the answer be that
the binaries indeed have to be removed from the upstream source in the
orig.tar.gz file, I would also very much like to know whether my current
approach of appending a sub-version to the upstream version number is
approriate (example: 2.03 -> 2.03.1).

Finally, if you feel that this should rather be brought up in a
different forum, please accept my apologies and kindly point me to a
better place.

Thank you very much & best regards
Andree
-- 
Andree Leidenfrost
Sydney - Australia

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: