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

Re: Sourceless but useless: how about ignoring some irrelevant files instead of repackaging?



On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 04:35:50AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Sourceless PDF files are not a violation of the Social Contract / DFSG.  If
> > you are having to sink time into finding source for such files, let's put an
> > end to this - give me the details and I'll propose a GR that reaffirms
> > what's stated already in our founding documents, that source code is only
> > mandatory for programs.
> Just to get this interesting: I've had packages rejected because of
> included sourceless PDFs.

> Specifically, ttf-gfs-{-didot,-baskerville,-olga,-porson} on 04/04/2008.

> Upstream is including a font specimen with their original "tarball" =
> zipfile. I asked them for the specimen "source" (like that would do us
> any good, being in Adobe Illustrator format et al) but they refused, big
> surprise there.

What is the upstream zipfile in question?

<http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/GFS_DIDOT_TT.zip>, which seems to be the
right upstream zipfile, contains only the 6 files included in the
ttf-gfs-didot orig.tar.gz.

Is <http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/images/Didot%20Specimen.pdf> the file in
question?  I certainly don't see that this would be a reason for a package
reject, but I also don't see any reason you would go out of your way to
package this if it's not already part of the upstream source.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: