Re: RFS nuitka
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >i. don't remove scons but just (minimalistic patch) make system
> >wide used
> > then you would need still to add its copyright/license into
> > debian/copyright, just add a comment that those are not used
> >ii (somewhat preferable). remove scons from within .orig.tar.gz
> I disagree that (ii) is preferable. You should not repack upstream
> source unless you have to. (Please see ftp-master's reject FAQ.)
(somewhat) agree -- in general there should be no repackaging, unless
the trade-off with archive size/clarity kicks in. i.e. why to
bloat .orig.tar.gz if there is an easy way to avoid it, while also
making 100%-proof that contained copy of 3rd party code is used instead
of system-wide one.
another aspect, as I hinted, if 3rd party pieces are shipped, their
license/copyright must be listed in debian/copyright -- that might
extend it considerably for no good reason... not sure if just a referral
to copyright file of the corresponding package would be appropriate.
> >(optionally add +dfsg or .dfsg suffix to the version making it
> >0.3.17~pre2+dfsg-1)
> Since the software would be repackaged for reasons that are
> unrelated to DFSG compliance, the "dfsg" suffix would be
> incorrect/confusing.
yeah -- agreed... shame on me though that I did use it this way many
times just to hint on having upstream tarball repacked -- I did feel
that it is inappropriate but just didn't listen to myself. Well, ok
-- for some I did stopped carrying +dfsg -- eh, inconsistent me ;)
do we have another commonly used suffix for such cases? or should
no suffix being added at all and just debian/README.Debian (or
debian/README.Debian-source) mention repackaging?
--
=------------------------------------------------------------------=
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic
Reply to: