Re: RFS: fbgetty
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:07:48PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 10:24:27PM +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> > > > The package seems almost lintian clean (2 warnings about outdated
> > > > config.sub/config.guess which are patched during the build, so it should
> > > > not generate any real errors).
> > >
> > > Any reason not to put the correct version in the .diff.gz?
> > >
> > I think it is best to keep the correct version in a dpatch file which i
> > can easily send to upstream. I like to have only debian/ in the diff.gz
> > (but it is only a matter of taste). I try to always use pristine
> > upstream source.
> I recommend that you build depend on the autotools-dev package
> instead (which is already pulled in) and that you upgrade to that
> version at build time.
I don't see the problem with sending a patch to upstream... I don't like
to auto upgrade part of the source: it should break the build system of
the upstream author...
> You should probably take a look at the license of your
> documentation. I have to wonder what "modified versions [...]
> under the conditions for verbatim copying" means. That seem to
> conflict with itself.
Yes, it seems to be auto conflicting.
> You also might want to look into the license of src/alloca.c.
It seems to be public domain (fast reading). I don't see the problem ?
Sylvain Le Gall