Your message dated Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:38:04 +0100
with message-id <20081215153804.go30...@yellowpig>
and subject line Re: Bug#508742: gap: No HTML docs
has caused the Debian Bug report #508742,
regarding gap: No HTML docs
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
508742: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=508742
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gap
Version: 4r4p10-2
Severity: wishlist
Upstream distributes HTML docs, but they aren't packaged for Debian.
Please do so.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages gap depends on:
ii gap-core 4r4p10-2 GAP computer algebra system, core
ii gap-libs 4r4p10-2 GAP computer algebra system, essen
ii gap-online-help 4r4p10-2 GAP computer algebra system, onlin
Versions of packages gap recommends:
ii gap-dev 4r4p10-2 GAP computer algebra system, compi
ii gap-doc 4r4p10-2 GAP computer algebra system, docum
ii gap-prim-groups 4r4p10-1 Database of primitive groups for G
ii gap-small-groups 4r4p10-1 Database of small groups for GAP
ii gap-trans-groups 4r4p10-1 Database of transitive groups for
Versions of packages gap suggests:
ii gap-character-tables 1r1p3-5 GAP Library of character tables
pn gap-small-groups-extra <none> (no description available)
pn gap-table-of-marks <none> (no description available)
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:58:09AM -0600, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> 2008/12/15 Bill Allombert <[email protected]>:
> > It is under the GNU GPL but it is certainly generated from the TeX
> > documentation using the script 'etc/convert.pl' in the GAP tool package,
> > so the HTML is not "the preferred form of the work for making
> > modifications to it.". For a software to be in main, the Debian policy
> > requires that it can be build from source in main, else it must go in
> > contrib.
Hello Jordi,
> The .orig.tar.gz tarball that comes with Debian (at least for the last
> packaged release of GAP) comes without this pregenerated HTML that the
> upstream tarball comes with. Does this mean you removed the upstream
> HTML when you packaged the tarball? If so, please indicate this
> somehow in README.Debian.
Actually I generate my own set of tarballs without prebuilt files.
This is done by the script debian/tarball.
> I understand that the HTML is generated in a non-free way, but why
> does that make the resulting product non-free? Upstream is
It does not make the package non-free, but it must go to contrib because
it cannot be built from source, see Debian policy 2.2.2.
2.2.2. The contrib category
Examples of packages which would be included in _contrib_ are:
* free packages which require _contrib_, _non-free_ packages or
packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or
execution,
> distributing the HTML, it's placing the HTML under the GPL, the HTML
> can be modified because it's a transparent format, so why can't we
> interpret the HTML itself to be the preferred form of modification?
Because upstream distributing the TeX source and the build system needed
to generate the HTML file from source is the proof it is not the preferred
form of modification. The DFSG and the GPL do not have a notion of
'transparent format', so this is an irrelevant argument.
> It's not as if upstream can violate their own license, so shouldn't we
> interpret upstream's distribution of the HTML as saying that the HTML
> itself is source?
This is absurd: upstream is distributing both the TeX source files and the
conversion script to HTML. They are not violating their license.
Upstream is also distributing binary and that does not make binary the
source.
The issue is not a license violation at all, but a Debian policy one,
and Debian policy is quite clear on this point.
If you want to improve things instead of closing your eyes on the issue,
work out with upstream how they could build the documentation with free
tools.
Closing this bug,
Cheers,
Bill.
--- End Message ---
