Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:33:51AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Not quite right. If only a source code filename were implicated, that > > would not be a problem. It's restrictions on what gets *installed* > > that is the problem. > > I disagree. We must have the freedom to rename files -- or not -- even > in the source distribution.
I think this runs into the "patch" issue. It's always been DFSG-ok for upstream to insist that we distribute *their* code in pristine unmodified source, and our changes must be in separate patches. I think that applies just as much to the filenames in the upstream source as to anything else. Note that a patch can change the location of a file just as effectively as the contents. Thomas
