Re: RFS: isomd5sum (formerly anaconda)
On (14/09/06 13:44), Ryan Finnie wrote:
> On 9/14/06, James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net> wrote:
> >Not quite, you missed md5.c. This file is not under the same license as
> >the rest of the package, and must be documented in debian/rules.
>
> (I'm assuming you mean debian/copyright, not debian/rules.)
Indeed, sorry.
> Doh. Is there boilerplate text for non-copyright public domain text,
> or should I basically put the first paragraph of md5.c's comments in
> debian/copyright?
Just stick the whole header in there really. It explains the whole
situation well. That file is in many packages in the archive, and that
is what I have encouraged other people to do.
>
> He's "just" the author, and is already documented as such. Red Hat
> employees assign copyright to the company for code they produce.
>
Ok, that's fine then. Thanks for the clarification.
> >This is not the normal method of doing this, but I think that it still
> >works. It makes it slightly harder for whoever picks up the package if
> >you were to go AWOL though.
>
> Yes, this is not the ideal situation, but the legal requirements makes
> it pretty daunting to maintain copyright notices for the entire
> anaconda project, especially considering 95% of the code won't be used
> (actually, 99.65% by source tarball size). If isomd5sum were
That's understandable.
> constantly updated, I wouldn't have considered this, but the source
> has been feature complete and relatively untouched for years now.
> Nonetheless, I will consider it an active duty to check for changes in
> upstream.
I meant that it's not usual to create a new tarball and host it. Usually
the upstream tarball is still referenced, and there are just somethings
added to the package. Then the maintainer recreates the .orig.tar.gz
each new upstream version.
I don't see that it matters either way though, so whatever you prefer.
> >There is also no need to have the current maintainer documented in
> >debian/copyright, that's what debian/control is for.
>
> I agree, but that paragraph is listed as a "good example" in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
Ah true. I hadn't noticed that. I'll just consider it a small mistake in
an otherwise excellent post.
James
--
James Westby -- GPG Key ID: B577FE13 -- http://jameswestby.net/
seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!>|&7U.L#9E)Tu)T0>AM - secp256r1/nistp256
Reply to: