Hi, On Fri, 2026-11-06 at 12:56 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > I specifically requested not to consider the severity or the RC-ness > status, but since you mention it: > > I see it differently. > > If I try to build the package and it fails, even when using nocheck, > then the source of the package, and more specifically the scripts > controlling the build, could reasonably be said to be incomplete.
So Debian would have to bundle the exact compiler used (or an entire build environment) with every source package as it might otherwise FTBFS with a newer compiler version (or newer headers, ...) which would make Debian non-compliant with the license? Or how would you ensure license compliance for your license interpretation? > The package is under GPL-3, which says this: > > Â The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all > Â the source code *needed* to generate, install, and (for an > executable > Â work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts > to > Â control those activities. > > Emphasis on *needed* is mine. Note that the last item is a clear > reference to Makefiles and similar stuff. > > So, in my opinion, the source for the Debian package is incomplete, > and it could be argued that we are breaking the spirit of the GPL by > distributing such package in its current state. Well, if every FTBFS was a license violation, Debian would have a small problem... Ansgar
