Bug#561494: Fwd: devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking
Thibaut Paumard
Copy sent again to d-devel to allow answers to go to the bug report.
Début du message réexpédié :
> Réenvoyé-De : debian...@lists.debian.org
> De : Thibaut Paumard <mlotpo...@free.fr>
> Date : 18 décembre 2009 14:17:09 HNEC
> À : Debian Debian Developers <debian...@lists.debian.org>, Debian
> Bug Debian BTS submit <sub...@bugs.debian.org>
> Objet : Rép : devref and policy should agree on where to document
> tarball repacking
>
>
> Le 17 déc. 09 à 17:28, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>
>> Package: developers-reference
>> Version: 3.4.3
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:45:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes:
>>
>>>> while checking the section 6.7.8.2 of the Developers reference
>>>> (“Repackaged upstream source”) in the context on another thread
>>>> on this
>>>> list
>>>> (http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/d921045c2e3ae5ec...@drazzib.com
>>>> ),
>>>> I found the following :
>>
>>>> A repackaged .orig.tar.gz
>>
>>>> 1. should be documented in the resulting source package.
>>>> Detailed
>>>> information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on
>>>> how
>>>> this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright.
>>>> It
>>>> is also a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in your
>>>> debian/rules file that repeats the process, as described in the
>>>> Policy Manual, Main building script: debian/rules.
>>
>> [...]
>> I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in
>> README.source rather than in debian/copyright;
>
> Hi,
>
> I believe this belongs in copyright. This is based on two
> considerations:
>
> 1) debian/copyright is (should be) the central repository for legal
> information for the source package as well as for all the binary
> packages it builds;
>
> 2) most free licenses require to clearly specify modifications to
> licensed work. Deleting files is to be considered a modification of
> the source package, which _is_ the licensed work.
>
> By the same token, I am starting to realise that we should also
> certainly specify in debian/copyright that some files have been
> patched. If using a patch system, the files are not modified in the
> source package, but still the binary packages are built with or even
> ship modified files. Also the details of the modifications belong
> elsewhere, I think debian/copyright should clearly state that our
> package is derived work, not the original, unmodified work.
>
> What is not clear to me is whether we need to list all the files
> that are modified (or removed), or whether a generic "this work may
> have been modified prior to inclusion in Debian" is sufficient (in
> debian/copyright).
>
> Best regards, Thibaut.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Russ Allbery
>> 2) most free licenses require to clearly specify modifications to
>> licensed work. Deleting files is to be considered a modification of the
>> source package, which _is_ the licensed work.
>>
>> By the same token, I am starting to realise that we should also
>> certainly specify in debian/copyright that some files have been
>> patched. If using a patch system, the files are not modified in the
>> source package, but still the binary packages are built with or even
>> ship modified files. Also the details of the modifications belong
>> elsewhere, I think debian/copyright should clearly state that our
>> package is derived work, not the original, unmodified work.
Our historical stance on this part of the problem is that debian/changelog
is sufficient documentation for what changes have been made to the package
(although that does imply that one needs to document in debian/changelog
what changes you're making).
This is consistent with the FSF's stance that the ChangeLog file is
sufficient to satisfy the GPL requirement that changes be documented
(since the GPL is one of the licenses with the most restrictive
requirements about change notices).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Steve Langasek
>>I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in
>>README.source rather than in debian/copyright;
>
>Hi,
>
>I believe this belongs in copyright. This is based on two
>considerations:
>
>1) debian/copyright is (should be) the central repository for
>legal information for the source package as well as for all the
>binary packages it builds;
We're talking about files that have been removed and are consequently *not*
part of the source package. Even if we conclude that debian/copyright is
the right place to document *what* has been removed from the upstream
source, I certainly disagree that this would include documenting the
*license* of the removed files in debian/copyright, and that's not what has
been asked for here. At most, I think best practice is to document what was
removed and give a short explanation of why the removal was necessary; that
doesn't imply reproducing the problematic license, just stating what the
problematic license terms are.
>2) most free licenses require to clearly specify modifications to
>licensed work. Deleting files is to be considered a modification
>of the source package, which _is_ the licensed work.
Deleting files is done when those files don't meet the DFSG, so I don't see
how this can ever be a problem with a free license. :)
--
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/
slan...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org