Re: Non-Free GFDL and correct packaging practices
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:54AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from ftp.gnu.org. Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info documentation. The package as it currently stands has needed no modification and it constists of the pristine upstream source tar file renamed to gnuhell-1.5_orig.tar.gz, with the debian/ directory added by the .diff.gz and nothing else changed. The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation (GFDL). Assuming the maintainer believes the GFDL is sufficiently non-free to warrant taking pre-emptive action and removing it, what's the right thing to do? Hey, I've been in exactly this scenario. I just punted the documentation (from the upstream source tarball as well). I don't care enough to maintain it in non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Non-Free GFDL and correct packaging practices
A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from ftp.gnu.org. Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info documentation. The package as it currently stands has needed no modification and it constists of the pristine upstream source tar file renamed to gnuhell-1.5_orig.tar.gz, with the debian/ directory added by the .diff.gz and nothing else changed. The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation (GFDL). Assuming the maintainer believes the GFDL is sufficiently non-free to warrant taking pre-emptive action and removing it, what's the right thing to do? Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate overrides changes) to non-free/doc? This would mean that the GFDL documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but distributed in binary form in the correct package. Or does he have to remove the GFDL-infected documentation from the tar file, thereby creating a Debian-native package and remove all trace and mention of the 'gnuhell-doc' package from it -- and then create a *new* source package for 'gnuhell-doc' which only contains the info file and is distributed as non-free. The first seems nicer, the second creates a total mess. Which is correct? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Non-Free GFDL and correct packaging practices
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:54AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation (GFDL). Assuming the maintainer believes the GFDL is sufficiently non-free to warrant taking pre-emptive action and removing it, what's the right thing to do? Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate overrides changes) to non-free/doc? This would mean that the GFDL documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but distributed in binary form in the correct package. As a practical matter, it is not, AFAIK, possible (or at least, not acceptable) to create non-free binary packages from source packages in main, nor vice-versa. Therefore, two separate source packages would need to be uploaded... Or does he have to remove the GFDL-infected documentation from the tar file, thereby creating a Debian-native package and remove all trace and mention of the 'gnuhell-doc' package from it -- and then create a *new* source package for 'gnuhell-doc' which only contains the info file and is distributed as non-free. in which case, you might as well build the tarball for the free source package the same way as you build the tarball for the non-free source package (i.e., by carving up the upstream archive). As a question of principle, I also believe this is the correct practice because of the contract we've made stating that everything in our main archive is covered by the freedoms listed in the DFSG. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-Free GFDL and correct packaging practices
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate overrides changes) to non-free/doc? This would mean that the GFDL documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but distributed in binary form in the correct package. As a practical matter, it is not, AFAIK, possible (or at least, not acceptable) to create non-free binary packages from source packages in main, nor vice-versa. Actually (as a practical matter) it currently is... but at some point, I'll get bored and break it (deliberately). Or does he have to remove the GFDL-infected documentation from the tar file, thereby creating a Debian-native package and remove all trace and It doesn't need to be Debian-native in the sense of '.tar.gz' vs. 'orig.tar.gz'. 'orig.tar.gz' doesn't have to mean pristine and 'orig.tar.gz' is almost always preferable to '.tar.gz'. As a question of principle, I also believe this is the correct practice because of the contract we've made stating that everything in our main archive is covered by the freedoms listed in the DFSG. Agreed. -- James
