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 source? 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