On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 05:45:51PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: > Bart Martens wrote: > > minidlna-1.0.25+dfsg/debian/copyright : > > > > | Source: http://sourceforge.net/projects/minidlna/files/ > > | The icons.c file in the original tarball contained binary blobs of > > possibly > > | unfree images. It has hence been replaced in the DFSG tarball by a > > file > > | containing the free Debian logo instead. It can be generated from the > > SVG logo > > | using the debian/make_icons.sh script (see the header of that file for > > | instructions). > > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz > > > > | A repackaged .orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz} should not contain any file that > > does not > > | come from the upstream author(s), or whose contents has been changed > > by you. > > > > So removing files is OK, adding/replacing files not. > > You're right, except that in this case, the source would fail to build > if I simply removed icons.c, so I think it falls under the exception > laid out in the footnote [1]: > > | As a special exception, if the omission of non-free files would lead > | to the source failing to build without assistance from the Debian > | diff, it might be appropriate to instead edit the files, omitting only > | the non-free parts of them, and/or explain the situation in a > | README.source file in the root of the source tree. But in that case > | please also urge the upstream author to make the non-free components > | easier separable from the rest of the source. > > [1] > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#ftn.idp20146152
That is about editing the to omit non-free parts, not about adding/replacing files. > > I haven't contacted upstream about it though, but I will do so shortly. It is always good to inform upstream about any non-free parts. > > But I now realize, reading the page you pointed to, that the top-level > directory in my orig.tar is improperly named; right now, it's called > minidlna-1.0.25+dfsg, and it should be minidlna-1.0.25+dfsg.orig (or is > it minidlna-1.0.25.orig?). I read packagename-upstream-version.orig, so it is minidlna-1.0.25.orig. > I wonder however, if the goal is to "make it > possible to distinguish pristine tarballs from repackaged ones", if > minidlna-1.0.25+dfsg doesn't make that clear enough already. I agree that this makes that clear enough already. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120726161353.gd31...@master.debian.org