On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:33:57AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Mi, Mai 26, 2010 at 09:17:14 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 06:59:00AM +0000, siret...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:The following commit has been merged in the master branch: commit e0636d22570edd78dcc81797f84336ffbd810b95 Author: Reinhard Tartler <siret...@tauware.de> Date: Wed May 26 08:30:37 2010 +0200 copy in mencoder.c from upstream this is a cowboy approach that places mencoder.c in debian/mencoder.c. This is of course a gross hack and should be reverted on the next upstream upgrade.[ huge patch snippet ]diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules index 0ba540f..c9c289d 100755 --- a/debian/rules +++ b/debian/rules @@ -93,8 +93,12 @@ endif # https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistCompilerFlags CLEAN_ENV=env -u CFLAGS -u CPPFLAGS -u LDFLAGS -u FFLAGS -u CXXFLAGS +# cowboy in mencoder.c manually fetched from upstream to avoid having to reroll +# a new upstream tarball. Will be dropped with a new upstream upgrade +mencoder.c: debian/mencoder.cI fail to see the point in hiding upstream code in the Debian packaging - even without mentioning it in debian/copyright!mencoder has exactly the same copyright as mplayer itself. My reading of debian/copyright does not leave any concerns about the licensing of mencoder. What parts are unclear according to your reading?
debian/copyright states that the packaging (which I read as the contents of the debian/ subdir) is owned by Dariush Pietrzak and A Mennucci.
Thank you for telling me here(!) the source and copyright of that particular file below debian/ - I would prefer if that information was contained in debian/copyright too, or at least in the header of the code (stored as a patch, conveniently leaving room for such meta info).
I strongly suggest to either place it as a proper patch with DEP3 header, or roll a new tarball.I disagree here. IMO, DEP3 is still way too much in flux to be seriously considered, please don't force me to use it. Moreover, DEP3 (currently) mandates a lot of very annoying and hairsplitting work by considering each and every source file which is not exactly required by debian policy. My opinion might change if DEP3 matures and #472199 makes progress.
It seems to me that you are talking about DEP5 - the proposed (status: draft) machine-readable debian/copyright file format. Indeed that one is in flux (but not a lot) and even when/if decided it is only optional.
I am talking about DEP3 - the proposed (status: candidate) machine-readable debian/patches/ header format. More info here: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
And to document its licensing if placed below debian/ .I could also have added it as patch in debian/patches, but I think that would have been even sillier.
Why do you find that sillier?
BTW, exactly this approach has been used before with the vdpau headers.
That does not surprise me - I never claimed that this was a first ever situation. But it does not change my recommending to do better. Why not?
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers