Hi Andreas, Accordingly with upstream permission to distribute the libOpenBUGS.so binary [1,2], I modified the copyright file [3].
I have some questions/problems to finish my package: -I try to fix "hardening-no-relro usr/bin/OpenBUGSCli" lintian warning using some tips from [4] but it doesn't work... if anyone have an idea to help me? -As libOpenBUGS.so is a private shared library it seem better to put it in /usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)/openbugs/ instead in /usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)/ , it is right? Best regards, Dylan [1] https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=bugs;c502f8a6.1407 [2] http://sourceforge.net/p/openbugs/code/1018/ [3] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/openbugs.git;a=commitdiff;h=d909b2a19e220584710e0e45dfc161e1b842dc00 [4] https://wiki.debian.org/HardeningWalkthrough 2014-07-09 23:02 GMT+02:00 Andreas Tille <[email protected]>: > Hi Dylan, > > as I said I'm a bit reluctant since I try to avoid this kind of > packages. I personally do not know the current opinion of ftpmaster. > We might try to upload to new and see what they might say if you just > include the copy of the upstream mail. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:38:42PM +0200, Dylan wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > I am in contact with the developers. In order to give us the permission > to > > distribute the binary, they propose to append the following sentence to > the > > COPYING file in the Linux source package: > > > > "[See each individual source file (.odc) for an exact license statement.] > > All of these sources are GPL-compatible, therefore the OpenBUGS shared > > library libOpenBUGS.so may be redistributed under the terms of the GPL > > version 3." > > > > It's the good way to do this or we need a special permission to > distribute > > the binary in a Debian package? For example, if they post a message with > > the permission on Debian Med mailing list it's adequate? > > > > Best regards, > > Dylan > > > > > > > > 2014-06-15 18:57 GMT+02:00 Andreas Tille <[email protected]>: > > > > > Hi Dylan, > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:17:16AM +0200, Dylan wrote: > > > > > Despite the open licensing question currently libOpenBUGS.so is a > > > binary > > > > > without source as far as I can see. So the correct way would be > to ask > > > > > upstream for the source and remove the binary from the orig.tar.gz > > > which > > > > > we use for the Debian package (by using Files-Excluded in > > > > > debian/copyright). > > > > > > > > I can not exclude libOpenBUGS.so because it is the core of OpenBUGS, > its > > > > sources seems to be on sourceforge [1] but it was writing in > Component > > > > Pascal which is impossible to compile on Linux for the moment. So, my > > > plans > > > > was to package openbugs as non-free package which include > libOpenBUGS.so > > > as > > > > binary. It is impossible to do this in this way? > > > > > > Hmmm, well, that's probably possible but not nice in any case. You > > > should definitely teach upstream to use FreePascal and explicitly ask > for > > > permission to distribute the binary (and add this to the copyright > file). > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
