On 11/9/05, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/9/05, John Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's understood that the sources are identical to Dapper origins. Linking to
> the upstream source location should definitely be valid GPL-wise.
He modified a gpl'ed program. So he has to provide the sources to the
binary he builds. It is not sufficient to just point to the 'upstream
source location' where the work is based on.
I don't see any evidence that any upstream file, other than the version field in debian/changelog, was modified during this backport.
I'm generally not that picky. The point here is that I have no
possibilty to verify that there was really not anything else touched
than debian/changelog. Using the source package, I could debdiff it
against the ubuntu package and build it myself. Publishing a binary
package gains me nothing.
Right, I understand the concern. You don't gain anything from this, but the rest of the backports users are getting really restless and upset about the lack of an official breezy-backports branch. As a result, some backports team members have been releasing their own binary packages in the meantime. They're not trying to push their work to
archive.ubuntu.com -- that'll show up when the Breezy backports infrastructure comes up. Right now, they're just providing users some temporary appeasement while waiting for breezy-backports to appear.
--
regards,
Reinhard
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
-- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
