Re: [RFS]: jsMath:TeX equations in HTML documents
Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com> wrote:
>> debian/copyright: I think that a binary deb package is a derivative of
>> both the upstream source and the Debian packaging. According to
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html, upstream's Apache
>> license (v.2.0) and your GPL for the packaging are incompatible.
> Tricky point... Indeed GPL and Apache licenses are incompatible
> since Apache has some additional conditions (according to the excerpt on
> the handy link you've provided). I don't think that it is required to
> have debian packaging material (which is simply the content of debian/
> directory) under compatible license with the main content. Simple
> arguments by examples:
I guess you are right.
> Should we ask on d-legal to clarify the position?
I don't think so.
>> - What's the purpose of this in config:
>> db_version 2.0 || [ 0 -lt 30 ]
> you caught me: I don't know from top of the head. Evil cut&paste. Indeed
> 2nd clause is effectively call to 'true'.
>
>> This looks just like || true, and debconf-devel(7) suggests you never
>> need this command...
> Hm... Could not see that -- actually it suggest us to use it:
Sorry to be unclear - I meant that db_version is rarely used.
> Indeed it would be nice to have it but I see it more of a wishlist
> item... ;-)
Yes, of course
>> - the postinst is probably RC buggy, see policy 10.7.4: "The maintainer
>> scripts must not alter a conffile of any package, including the one
>> the scripts belong to." At least /etc/apache2/httpd.conf doesn't seem
>> to be a conffile, but I think this mostly applies to configuration
>> files, too.
> just only to those that are conffiles. There are some configuration
> files which are created by postinst scipts and are totally valid
> according 10.7.3.
Yes, it's not a RC bug, but it might still cause problems, since the
package that created httpd.conf don't expect that, and even more so
since there are other mechanisms.
>> Moreover, I doubt that this works at all, and I think there are better
> hm... seems to be working to me ;-) I've tested it on a box and
> previousely I had gallery installed on a few, that is why I recalled
> that it copes with registering itself within apache
>
>> mechanisms to interact with webserver packages than that. You write
> any pointer would be great -- may be some exemplar package
/etc/apache2/README explains shortly how it's supposed to work. It also
says that httpd.conf is an empty file, and the file itself says it's
mostly for backwards compatibility. You should try whether it works
with files in /etc/apache2/mods-{available,enabled} or
/etc/apache2/sites-{available,enabled}, then you could have real
conffiles with everything dpkg offers for them.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: