Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#849853: [debian-policy] Document source-is-missing lintian kind of problems
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Bastien ROUCARIÈS
Jan 1, 2017, 7:50:03 AM1/1/17
to
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.8.0
Severity: important
Hi,
I get some problems when reporting bug detected by source-is-missing tag in
lintian.
The main problems are:
* minified javascript is source
* I remove it using rules
* It is not a problems because not included in the binary forms
Even if I use the mail template at end of this main, I get some long answer
specifiing it is not a problem and even sometimes I get some answers (by
private mail) that are not appropriate.
I believe we should offer on policy pointer to ftp master reject faq and some
description of common problems. Maybe it belong to devref.
Bastien with lintian hat
Mail template
your package includes some files that seem to lack sources
in preferred forms of modification:
{list of files}
According to Debian Free Software Guidelines [1] (DFSG) #2:
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled form."
In some cases this could also constitute a license violation for some
copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. (While sometimes the licence
allows not to ship the source, the DFSG always mandates source code.)
In order to solve this problem, you could:
1. add the source files to "debian/missing-sources" directory.
2. repack the origin tarball and add the missing source files to it.
Both way satisfy the requirement to ship all source code. The second option
might be preferable due to the following reasons [2]:
- Upstream can do it too and you could even supply a patch to them, thus
full filling our social contract [3], see particularly §2.
- If source and non-source are in different locations, ftpmasters may
miss the source and (needlessly) reject the package.
- The source isn't duplicated in every .diff.gz/.debian.tar.* (though
this only really matters for larger sources).
You could also ask debi...@lists.debian.org or #debian-qa for more
guidance.
[1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html#guidelines
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736873#8
[3] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
Version: 3.9.8.0
Severity: important
Hi,
I get some problems when reporting bug detected by source-is-missing tag in
lintian.
The main problems are:
* minified javascript is source
* I remove it using rules
* It is not a problems because not included in the binary forms
Even if I use the mail template at end of this main, I get some long answer
specifiing it is not a problem and even sometimes I get some answers (by
private mail) that are not appropriate.
I believe we should offer on policy pointer to ftp master reject faq and some
description of common problems. Maybe it belong to devref.
Bastien with lintian hat
Mail template
your package includes some files that seem to lack sources
in preferred forms of modification:
{list of files}
According to Debian Free Software Guidelines [1] (DFSG) #2:
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled form."
In some cases this could also constitute a license violation for some
copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. (While sometimes the licence
allows not to ship the source, the DFSG always mandates source code.)
In order to solve this problem, you could:
1. add the source files to "debian/missing-sources" directory.
2. repack the origin tarball and add the missing source files to it.
Both way satisfy the requirement to ship all source code. The second option
might be preferable due to the following reasons [2]:
- Upstream can do it too and you could even supply a patch to them, thus
full filling our social contract [3], see particularly §2.
- If source and non-source are in different locations, ftpmasters may
miss the source and (needlessly) reject the package.
- The source isn't duplicated in every .diff.gz/.debian.tar.* (though
this only really matters for larger sources).
You could also ask debi...@lists.debian.org or #debian-qa for more
guidance.
[1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html#guidelines
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736873#8
[3] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
Sean Whitton
Jul 2, 2017, 6:00:02 AM7/2/17
to
Hello Bastien,
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:45:34PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
> I get some problems when reporting bug detected by source-is-missing
> tag in lintian.
>
> The main problems are:
> * minified javascript is source
> * I remove it using rules
> * It is not a problems because not included in the binary forms
>
> [...]
free software for Debian's purposes. Thanks to the DPL's delegation of
the ftp-masters, Policy defers to the DFSG plus the ftp-masters jointly.
If we included text in Policy about common ways in which a package could
fail to satisfy DFSG, Policy would effectively cease to defer to the
ftp-masters. I don't think that Policy has the authority to do that,
and I don't think it would be desirable.
A footnote with a link to the REJECT-FAQ sounds useful. Here's a patch.
> Maybe it belong to devref.
Perhaps that should be a separate bug, if we're going to use this one to
discuss adding a footnote with a link to the REJECT-FAQ.
--
Sean Whitton
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:45:34PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
> I get some problems when reporting bug detected by source-is-missing
> tag in lintian.
>
> The main problems are:
> * minified javascript is source
> * I remove it using rules
> * It is not a problems because not included in the binary forms
>
>
> I believe we should offer on policy pointer to ftp master reject faq
> and some description of common problems.
Policy currently defers to the DFSG for a definition of what counts as
> I believe we should offer on policy pointer to ftp master reject faq
> and some description of common problems.
free software for Debian's purposes. Thanks to the DPL's delegation of
the ftp-masters, Policy defers to the DFSG plus the ftp-masters jointly.
If we included text in Policy about common ways in which a package could
fail to satisfy DFSG, Policy would effectively cease to defer to the
ftp-masters. I don't think that Policy has the authority to do that,
and I don't think it would be desirable.
A footnote with a link to the REJECT-FAQ sounds useful. Here's a patch.
> Maybe it belong to devref.
discuss adding a footnote with a link to the REJECT-FAQ.
--
Sean Whitton
Russ Allbery
Jul 2, 2017, 5:50:03 PM7/2/17
to
Sean Whitton <spwh...@spwhitton.name> writes:
> Policy currently defers to the DFSG for a definition of what counts as
> free software for Debian's purposes. Thanks to the DPL's delegation of
> the ftp-masters, Policy defers to the DFSG plus the ftp-masters jointly.
> If we included text in Policy about common ways in which a package could
> fail to satisfy DFSG, Policy would effectively cease to defer to the
> ftp-masters. I don't think that Policy has the authority to do that,
> and I don't think it would be desirable.
Agreed. This area is also fairly controversial and fluid, whereas Policy
> Policy currently defers to the DFSG for a definition of what counts as
> free software for Debian's purposes. Thanks to the DPL's delegation of
> the ftp-masters, Policy defers to the DFSG plus the ftp-masters jointly.
> If we included text in Policy about common ways in which a package could
> fail to satisfy DFSG, Policy would effectively cease to defer to the
> ftp-masters. I don't think that Policy has the authority to do that,
> and I don't think it would be desirable.
(at least right now) is very static and slow-moving, so I think we would
run a very high risk of incorporating rules that the project then changes
and thereby adding to the confusion.
> A footnote with a link to the REJECT-FAQ sounds useful. Here's a patch.
I second your patch (not that I really need to since it's informative).
Seems like a good thing to merge.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Sean Whitton
Jul 3, 2017, 9:30:04 AM7/3/17
to
control: tag -1 +pending
On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 02:42:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As much as I don't like footnotes, this does seem like a good use of one.
> I second your patch (not that I really need to since it's informative).
> Seems like a good thing to merge.
Given that this is indeed not normative, nor even a change to the text
of Policy, I've applied my patch.
I've also marked the change as closing this bug, but if Bastian feels
that adding the footnote does not fully address the concerns he had when
filing this bug, he should feel quite welcome to re-open it.
--
Sean Whitton
On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 02:42:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As much as I don't like footnotes, this does seem like a good use of one.
> I second your patch (not that I really need to since it's informative).
> Seems like a good thing to merge.
of Policy, I've applied my patch.
I've also marked the change as closing this bug, but if Bastian feels
that adding the footnote does not fully address the concerns he had when
filing this bug, he should feel quite welcome to re-open it.
--
Sean Whitton
roucaries bastien
Jul 12, 2017, 7:10:03 PM7/12/17
to
On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Sean Whitton <spwh...@spwhitton.name> wrote:
> Hello Bastien,
>
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:45:34PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
>> I get some problems when reporting bug detected by source-is-missing
>> tag in lintian.
>>
>> The main problems are:
>> * minified javascript is source
>> * I remove it using rules
>> * It is not a problems because not included in the binary forms
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I believe we should offer on policy pointer to ftp master reject faq
>> and some description of common problems.
>
> Policy currently defers to the DFSG for a definition of what counts as
> free software for Debian's purposes. Thanks to the DPL's delegation of
> the ftp-masters, Policy defers to the DFSG plus the ftp-masters jointly.
>
> If we included text in Policy about common ways in which a package could
> fail to satisfy DFSG, Policy would effectively cease to defer to the
> ftp-masters. I don't think that Policy has the authority to do that,
> and I don't think it would be desirable.
>
> A footnote with a link to the REJECT-FAQ sounds useful. Here's a patch.
Yes it will work thanks
> Hello Bastien,
>
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:45:34PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
>> I get some problems when reporting bug detected by source-is-missing
>> tag in lintian.
>>
>> The main problems are:
>> * minified javascript is source
>> * I remove it using rules
>> * It is not a problems because not included in the binary forms
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I believe we should offer on policy pointer to ftp master reject faq
>> and some description of common problems.
>
> Policy currently defers to the DFSG for a definition of what counts as
> free software for Debian's purposes. Thanks to the DPL's delegation of
> the ftp-masters, Policy defers to the DFSG plus the ftp-masters jointly.
>
> If we included text in Policy about common ways in which a package could
> fail to satisfy DFSG, Policy would effectively cease to defer to the
> ftp-masters. I don't think that Policy has the authority to do that,
> and I don't think it would be desirable.
>
> A footnote with a link to the REJECT-FAQ sounds useful. Here's a patch.
0 new messages