Bug#27906: PROPOSED] Binary-only NMU's
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 03:00:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> GPL v2, s3, last para, emph mine:
> If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
> access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
> access to copy the source code _from the same place_ counts as
> distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
> compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
>
> The BTS is not the same place as the FTP site. For example, many
> people make CDs and mirrors of the FTP site but not of the BTS.
And many people make CDs and mirrors of the binary section of the FTP site
but not of the source. The "third party" rule seems to allow this, so the
only condition is that the BTS and main FTP site are "the same place" for
some hazy definition of "same place" (same machine name, same box,
directory, ...).
> > I'm aware that this is not 100% clean, but bin-only NMUs are an
> > important instrument for us porters. There are some circumstances
> > where they seem necessary and/or justified:
>
> I don't understand your objection. All I want you to do is not to
> give dpkg-buildpackage the -b flag if you've modified the source, so
> that you upload the source along with your binaries. This is exactly
> what you're doing atm, except that you're not distributing the source.
Won't this overwrite the existing diff and source that the previous uploader
put there? I see parallels with "NMUs cannot close bugs" here.
Adrian
email: adrian.bridgett@zetnet.co.uk, http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett
Windows NT - Unix in beta-testing. PGP key available on public key servers
Avoid tiresome goat sacrifices -=- use Debian Linux http://www.debian.org
Reply to: