David Rabel <david.ra...@noresoft.com> writes:

> On 09.02.2018 00:44, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Is the compiled binary file generated entirely from sources that are
> > all in the upstream source distribution?
> Yes, it's genereated from the sources. Allthough I cannot technically
> verify that.

That will be a necessary part of the Debian packaging work: you'll need
to ensure the build process of the work from its source, in a way that
others can also replicate from your packaging.

In other words: When you omit the bundled file from the source package,
and re-generate the equivalent from the source files, that will
demonstrate whether or not there are significant differences in the
original bundled file.

> > Is the compiled binary file needed at all — can it be removed without
> > detriment for generating the Debian package from source?
> It can be removed, yes. It is recompiled during the build processs
> anyways.

Do you know that the file is re-compiled from entirely DFSG-compliant

If the answer is no, then (that part of) the work is not free software,
so removing it would justify a ‘+dfsg.1’ suffix on the re-packed source.

If the answer is yes, and there are no other DFSG problems, the
re-packed source should probably get ‘+ds.1’ suffix.

> Yes, that's sounds good. Which suffix is best-fitting? +dfsg ? I'm
> uncertain, since the file is very probably free software.

As a separate matter, you will want to have good documentation in
‘debian/copyright’ showing that the work is in fact free software when
recompiled and redistributed in Debian.

 \     “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of |
  `\    men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good |
_o__)                               of everyone.” —John Maynard Keynes |
Ben Finney

Reply via email to