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 
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

+# 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.c

I 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to