Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a bizarre interpretation. If it unpacks to the same code (such > that "diff -r" produces no output), it's effectively the same source. > Who cares about the packaging? (Yes, I understand that it screws > up md5sums/whatevers on the archive. So what? The files should be > md5summed, not the archive.)
Some people do, unfortunately. Of course the example I'm going to cite is a bizarre case, and puts the package (qmail) in non-free anyway, but Dan Bernstein's distribution conditions read: ----- You may distribute copies of qmail-1.00.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum d3033be700fd6f59ac0548c832652dd3. You may distribute copies of qmail-1.01.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum 1f606d6a5d1caaca6da6b6fa5db500bf. You may distribute copies of qmail-1.02.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum 01071fe52b5257adb4bb6bcf8149eb16. You may distribute copies of qmail-1.03.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum 622f65f982e380dbe86e6574f3abcb7c. ----- so re-packing or re-compressing is not an option in this case. I imagine that a DFSG license that scrapes in on the basis of allowing patches, could call for the main source to have a particular checksum. Perhaps this is something we should keep in mind if we ever decide to re-draft the DFSG. Cheers, Phil.
