Hi again,
> On 08/19/2011 01:31 AM, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> >
> > I'm wondering whether it would make sense to remove other cruft as well -
> > basically contrib/ entirely and workspaces could go as well. And, well, I think
>
> might be a good idea, thanks.
> when i did it, i mainly removed the MUST (test/models_nonfreebsd), and
> _some_ obvious ones...
>
I completely agree that the principal idea should be stripping only the
DFSG-incompatible stuff, but here there may be added value of both saved space
and a guaranteed clean build: if, e.g., contrib/zlib/ isn't there, it can't be
unintentionally used :-)
> > +dfsg would be preferable over ~dfsg, but you might have good reasons for your
> > choice?
>
> im using that because in the pkg-multimedia team (where i partake), we
> use "~".
>
[...] (interesting statistics)
I think the only potential problem is weird version numbers in cases where a
backport or security uploads come into play. We've had this issue in clamav and
hence moved to +dfsg ever since. But thanks a lot for providing those nice
statistics and I believe it's just fine if you go with the pkg-multimedia line.
[...]
>
> i checked with upstream and they assure me, that _all_ code is under
> BSD(3 clause), and that the 4 files mentioned are wrongly flagged as LGPL.
>
> what is the proper way to proceed from here?
> - waiting for new upstream to fix these issues (i have been waiting for
> a new upstream for 5 months now; and while they are active, it might
> take a long time for them to do a proper release, so i hope to not have
> to do that)
> - add a debian/patches/fix_licenses.pach to fix the license according to
> what upstream says
> - fix debian/copyright to make everything BSD-3 and eventually add some
> notice that this is in accordance to what upstream says.
>
I think it would be ok to simply quote upstream's email (after asking for
permission, if it was a private conversation at least) in debian/copyright.
Patching license/copyright information always feels a bit strange.
[...]
> >
> > - Upstream seems to ship tests; it would be nice if those were run at build
> > time. (But using Debian's cppunit, not the home-grown one in contrib/.)
>
> i will have a look.
> the tests mainly use the supplied model data, and a lot of models are
> stripped away for dfsg reasons.
>
> i was also thinking of stripping away the ("free") models as well, as
> they currently do not appear in any binary package and take 40MB or so
> of disk space.
> adding tests would then make at least _some_ use of those models.
>
[...]
Hmm, indeed it seems sensible to strip such large and useless files. Yet tests
are definitively good to have, personally I'd strongly prefer tests over smaller
source packages.
Best,
Michael
Attachment:
pgpMgvcdZ23Ei.pgp
Description: PGP signature