What is Debian policy on pdf documentation in upstream source?
dolfin needs an updated petsc to run optimally (multiple processors). And dolfin is cool, so I'll update petsc (the latest version at http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc is 3.6.1). We've been using a dfsg version of petsc. The dfsg impact is minimal: (1) a windows executable and dll in bin/win32fe/ (2) pdf manuals (manual.pdf, tao_manual.pdf, developers.pdf in docs/) These two sets of files are only dfsg because the source code is not available to generate them. I gather we'd be free to modify the files and distribute modifications if we wanted to. Actually we let the exe slip in anyway into petsc 3.4.2.dfsg1. The win32 binary is irrelevant to us, so it no more violates dfsg than a png image file would. Change its bits and distribute the altered exe if you want to, the licence doesn't prohibit that. Hey, why not edit it into the format of a png image file? But do we need to be pedantic about upstream pdf files? Our petsc distribution would be in principle be improved if we were to include the pdf manuals. As far as the win32 exe goes, maintenance would be simpler if we didn't have to generate a separate dfsg-free upstream tarball just to remove a file that we don't use. Drew
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
