[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: wizznic

Hi Edgar,

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:53:44AM -0500, Edgar Antonio Palma de la Cruz wrote:
> El Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:21:23 +0200
> Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org> escribió:
> > Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
> > > Right, I missed the .o and .dll files, counting only
> > > wizznic-x86-precompiled and tools/releaser/data/win/curl/curl.exe
> > > (the ones mentioned by lintian).
> > >
> > > The dlls are libjpeg, zlib, libogg, SDL, openssl -- all DFSG free
> > > with source already in main.
> > 
> > The source would need to be included in the same (source) package to
> > make sure that it is the same version and that we will still include
> > source even if another package is removed from the archive.
> > 
> > Ansgar
> > 
> > 
> I get a little confused about what I do with the dfsg, I should remove
> the binaries or add a the source of them? 

There seems to be somewhat different oppinions on this. Mine is: remove all
binary files whether they can be compiled from source or not and strip the
source down to the largest set of source files that can still reliably build
your binaries. Problem with the binary files is that it's close to
impossible to reliably know how and by whom they were built and what license
they come with. The problem of people being able to run potentially
malicious code is another (usually for this conext minor) problem.

If you can - with respect to ensuring a DFSG-free license - leave them in
the tarball and document them (and potentially put a check into d/rules
looking after them not being "tainted" - how ever that may look like) that'd
be an option. Yet as said IMHO it's practically close to impossible to debug a
windows binary set with regards to libraries linked into there etc. at build
time of a Debian package.

> Also, I need to modify the d/copyright, d/changelog, d/watch
> make README.debian-source, orig.tar.bz2 and add a rule get-orig-source
> to d/rules to make a _good_ dfsg repackage?

Yes, that should do it.

Best regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: