On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 17:47 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote: > Neil Williams ha scritto: > > Do you mean these are embedded source? Source code that already exists > > as a separate package in Debian should not be duplicated in NEW > > packages. Use the existing library support and remove the unwanted > > source files from your package source tarball. > > minpack-dev Debian package provides the headers, man pages, examples, > and static library. Like most -dev packages - should be all that you need (along with the actual shared library that is the target of the symlinks also in most -dev packages). > freemat needs some files (*.f) that are not exists as a separate package > in Debian If those are generated files, the -dev should provide them. If they are source files (i.e. modifiable), these files must be explicitly covered by a compatible licence. You don't describe what these files are or do so I can't say much more than that. > >> Can I claim that these files are under Minipack license, and write a > >> statement in debian/copyright? How can you claim that these are under the Minipack licence if the minipack -dev package does not contain them? Are they packaged in the minipack source tarball? > > > > No. > > > > If there are differences, those differences still cause licence issues. > > If there are no differences, there is no point having the files in the > > source in the first place. > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand. There are no differences, but freemat > need those files for compiling. You need to explain what these *.f files are and what they are supposed to provide. .f means nothing to me. (.o I'd understand, as I would for .c, .cpp, .h, .pl and a host of others). -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part