Please keep debian-mentors CC'ed when replying... On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 15:53 +0000, Peter Marsh wrote: > Thanks for the response but I don't see the restriction on commercial > use, I thought it was under the BSD licence (according to > licence.txt)? Oh, I misread a paragraph in license.txt, my fault. That seems to be fine. Still, there are problems with building it, especially as you probably *have* to build it using a binary of itself, which is not available for all architectures. Asking upstream about build-instructions might be a good idea though. > > Subject: Re: Packaging a self-hosting assemler from source > > From: firstname.lastname@example.org > > To: email@example.com > > CC: firstname.lastname@example.org > > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:21:03 +0100 > > > > On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 12:58 +0000, Peter Marsh wrote: > > > > > I'm trying to package FASM (http://www.flatassembler.net/) from > > > source. It's a self-hosting assembler, and upstream doesn't > provide a > > > makefile. I can't find anything in the docs about how I should > > > correctly specify a make file and the build-depends (the package > will > > > depend on its self, surely?). > > > > Having a quick look at the bugger it seems that the tarball is not > > shipping with any build instructions. > > > > Additionally, fasm is non-free. > > Why? Well, there is a restriction on commercial use in its license, > > which might warrant calling it "open source", but not free software. > > > > A circular dependency on itself also seems weird (and probably don't > > work). You might need to use the binary shipped with the tarball to > > again compile the assembler itself, but to be honest, I do not see > any > > valid reason to do so (it's compiled already). > > > > Also, I wouldn't trust that code personally. Upstream could have > slipped > > pretty much anything into the binary. > > > > Lastly, I do see a problem with portability here, since upstream > only > > provides x86 executables, which leaves all other architectures > > locked-out. > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > If you still want to package this non-free piece of software you > > probably should contact upstream and ask for build instructions. > > > > Again, personally I would go ahead and use a free alternative that > has > > been already packaged (nasm, yasm, binutils-provided "as"). > > > > Still, IANADD, so I might be wrong there. > > > > -- Stephan > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find out more!
Description: This is a digitally signed message part