Hi again, > On 08/19/2011 01:31 AM, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > > > > I'm wondering whether it would make sense to remove other cruft as well - > > basically contrib/ entirely and workspaces could go as well. And, well, I > > think > > might be a good idea, thanks. > when i did it, i mainly removed the MUST (test/models_nonfreebsd), and > _some_ obvious ones... >
I completely agree that the principal idea should be stripping only the
DFSG-incompatible stuff, but here there may be added value of both saved space
and a guaranteed clean build: if, e.g., contrib/zlib/ isn't there, it can't be
unintentionally used :-)
> > +dfsg would be preferable over ~dfsg, but you might have good reasons for
> > your
> > choice?
>
> im using that because in the pkg-multimedia team (where i partake), we
> use "~".
>
[...] (interesting statistics)
I think the only potential problem is weird version numbers in cases where a
backport or security uploads come into play. We've had this issue in clamav and
hence moved to +dfsg ever since. But thanks a lot for providing those nice
statistics and I believe it's just fine if you go with the pkg-multimedia line.
[...]
>
> i checked with upstream and they assure me, that _all_ code is under
> BSD(3 clause), and that the 4 files mentioned are wrongly flagged as LGPL.
>
> what is the proper way to proceed from here?
> - waiting for new upstream to fix these issues (i have been waiting for
> a new upstream for 5 months now; and while they are active, it might
> take a long time for them to do a proper release, so i hope to not have
> to do that)
> - add a debian/patches/fix_licenses.pach to fix the license according to
> what upstream says
> - fix debian/copyright to make everything BSD-3 and eventually add some
> notice that this is in accordance to what upstream says.
>
I think it would be ok to simply quote upstream's email (after asking for
permission, if it was a private conversation at least) in debian/copyright.
Patching license/copyright information always feels a bit strange.
[...]
> >
> > - Upstream seems to ship tests; it would be nice if those were run at build
> > time. (But using Debian's cppunit, not the home-grown one in contrib/.)
>
> i will have a look.
> the tests mainly use the supplied model data, and a lot of models are
> stripped away for dfsg reasons.
>
> i was also thinking of stripping away the ("free") models as well, as
> they currently do not appear in any binary package and take 40MB or so
> of disk space.
> adding tests would then make at least _some_ use of those models.
>
[...]
Hmm, indeed it seems sensible to strip such large and useless files. Yet tests
are definitively good to have, personally I'd strongly prefer tests over smaller
source packages.
Best,
Michael
pgpTG4whtchJ5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
