Bug#682781: RFS: minidlna

[Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 05:45:51PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote:
> Bart Martens wrote:
> > minidlna-1.0.25+dfsg/debian/copyright :
> > 
> >   |  Source: http://sourceforge.net/projects/minidlna/files/
> >   |   The icons.c file in the original tarball contained binary blobs of possibly
> >   |   unfree images. It has hence been replaced in the DFSG tarball by a file
> >   |   containing the free Debian logo instead. It can be generated from the SVG logo
> >   |   using the debian/make_icons.sh script (see the header of that file for
> >   |   instructions).
> > 
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz
> > 
> >   |  A repackaged .orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz} should not contain any file that does not
> >   |  come from the upstream author(s), or whose contents has been changed by you.
> > 
> > So removing files is OK, adding/replacing files not.
> 
> You're right, except that in this case, the source would fail to build
> if I simply removed icons.c, so I think it falls under the exception
> laid out in the footnote [1]:
> 
>   |  As a special exception, if the omission of non-free files would lead
>   |  to the source failing to build without assistance from the Debian
>   |  diff, it might be appropriate to instead edit the files, omitting only
>   |  the non-free parts of them, and/or explain the situation in a
>   |  README.source file in the root of the source tree. But in that case
>   |  please also urge the upstream author to make the non-free components
>   |  easier separable from the rest of the source.
> 
> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#ftn.idp20146152

That is about editing the to omit non-free parts, not about adding/replacing
files.

> 
> I haven't contacted upstream about it though, but I will do so shortly.

It is always good to inform upstream about any non-free parts.

> 
> But I now realize, reading the page you pointed to, that the top-level
> directory in my orig.tar is improperly named; right now, it's called
> minidlna-1.0.25+dfsg, and it should be minidlna-1.0.25+dfsg.orig (or is
> it minidlna-1.0.25.orig?).

I read packagename-upstream-version.orig, so it is minidlna-1.0.25.orig.

> I wonder however, if the goal is to "make it
> possible to distinguish pristine tarballs from repackaged ones", if
> minidlna-1.0.25+dfsg doesn't make that clear enough already.

I agree that this makes that clear enough already.

Regards,

Bart Martens