Re: [SCM] mplayer packaging branch, master, updated. debian/1.0.rc3+svn20100502-3-4-g32b4f56
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:35:33AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Mi, Mai 26, 2010 at 10:10:18 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: 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: 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. yes, from lines 1 to 20. The rest of the file talks about the upstream licensing. ...mentioning which subdir or files each licensing applies to. Indeed there is first a general section, but as I write above, I consider the debian/ subdir as an exception to the general section - as I believe is the case for all Debian packages except those where Debian is upstream. 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). Since mencoder is part of mplayer, I thought the licensing was clear, but if you find it confusing, we could clarify that in a sentence or two in debian/copyright. Yes, please do. Not just by mentioning the word "mencoder", but by referencing the *file* which is in the (from a licensing perspective) unusual place below debian/ . 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/ You are completely right that I horribly confused DEP3 and DEP5. We talked about debian/copyright and using patches for that matter feels really strange to me so that I must have skipped that word. Fair enough. I talked not only about licensing, though, but more generally about the oddity of non-Debian code included not in source tarball and not as a patch, but "hidded" among the Debian packaging code. And specifically I did write "patch" very close to "DEP3" ;-) I strongly suggest that you follow common patterns instead. 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? it requires additional work overhead to work (diff, update, etc.) with. Commit logs don't contain diff-on-diffs. In case mencoder.c is changed, debdiffs become more readable. Morover, changes are less likely to confuse 'git annotate'. In short: I find this approach much more practicable and easier to work with. Thanks for clarifying :-) I do not like your argument, though: I thought it was meant as short-term approach until next release (or snapshot) from upstream, so not important if cumbersome to maintain. I find that debian/ subdir generally contains Debian packaging code (which should be covered with a single statement in debian/copyright), except for debian/patches/ which contains code from various sources and should then in each case be documented (using DEP3 header and if needed statements in debian/copyright too). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] mplayer packaging branch, master, updated. debian/1.0.rc3+svn20100502-3-4-g32b4f56
On Mi, Mai 26, 2010 at 10:10:18 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > 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 +, siret...@users.alioth.debian.org >>> wrote: The following commit has been merged in the master branch: commit e0636d22570edd78dcc81797f84336ffbd810b95 Author: Reinhard Tartler 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.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. yes, from lines 1 to 20. The rest of the file talks about the upstream licensing. > 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). Since mencoder is part of mplayer, I thought the licensing was clear, but if you find it confusing, we could clarify that in a sentence or two in debian/copyright. >>> 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/ You are completely right that I horribly confused DEP3 and DEP5. We talked about debian/copyright and using patches for that matter feels really strange to me so that I must have skipped that word. I've already been working far too long on the mplayer and ffmpeg package today, finally need to get back to my day-job. >>> 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? it requires additional work overhead to work (diff, update, etc.) with. Commit logs don't contain diff-on-diffs. In case mencoder.c is changed, debdiffs become more readable. Morover, changes are less likely to confuse 'git annotate'. In short: I find this approach much more practicable and easier to work with. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] mplayer packaging branch, master, updated. debian/1.0.rc3+svn20100502-3-4-g32b4f56
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 +, siret...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: The following commit has been merged in the master branch: commit e0636d22570edd78dcc81797f84336ffbd810b95 Author: Reinhard Tartler 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.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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] mplayer packaging branch, master, updated. debian/1.0.rc3+svn20100502-3-4-g32b4f56
On Mi, Mai 26, 2010 at 09:17:14 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 06:59:00AM +, siret...@users.alioth.debian.org > wrote: >>The following commit has been merged in the master branch: >>commit e0636d22570edd78dcc81797f84336ffbd810b95 >>Author: Reinhard Tartler >>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.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? > Rolling a new tarball does not trigger ftpmaster approval through the > NEW queue, new binary packages does, so that is bound to happen anyway. Correct. > 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. > 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. BTW, exactly this approach has been used before with the vdpau headers. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] mplayer packaging branch, master, updated. debian/1.0.rc3+svn20100502-3-4-g32b4f56
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 06:59:00AM +, siret...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: The following commit has been merged in the master branch: commit e0636d22570edd78dcc81797f84336ffbd810b95 Author: Reinhard Tartler 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.c I fail to see the point in hiding upstream code in the Debian packaging - even without mentioning it in debian/copyright! Rolling a new tarball does not trigger ftpmaster approval through the NEW queue, new binary packages does, so that is bound to happen anyway. I strongly suggest to either place it as a proper patch with DEP3 header, or roll a new tarball. And to document its licensing if placed below debian/ . - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
