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