Hi,
On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 02:56:40PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 02:46:52PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Who is the upstream of aclocal.m4? Do I REALLY have to talk to people who
contributed two lines of code to GNU autotools three decades ago to maintain
a simple package in Debianß
No-one, because it is a generated file. So if you care, you provide
sources without all those files, which are already rebuilt by
dh_autoreconf anyway. This then also plugs the xz shaped hole.
If that is so, why do we still tell our people to pull the upstream
tarball and that it is important to have the upstream source verbatim in
Debian?
This all doesn't help. We need definitive guidelines that package
maintainers can adhere to. Maintaining debian/copyright already takes more
time than maintaining the actual package, it is impossible to do right, and
frankly, I ask myself why I am still maintaining packages for Debian EVERY
time I open up an editor in debian/copyright.
The complete current concept of debian/copyright is not useful. Someone
who looks at binary packages cares about what the accumulative licenses
of this are. They don't need another copy of the source information.
I strongly feel that we are being once more holier than the pope in this
matter.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
