* Yaroslav Halchenko <deb...@onerussian.com>, 2012-01-02, 15:15:
i. don't remove scons but just (minimalistic patch) make system
wide used
then you would need still to add its copyright/license into
debian/copyright, just add a comment that those are not used
ii (somewhat preferable). remove scons from within .orig.tar.gz
I disagree that (ii) is preferable. You should not repack upstream
source unless you have to. (Please see ftp-master's reject FAQ.)
(somewhat) agree -- in general there should be no repackaging, unless
the trade-off with archive size/clarity kicks in. i.e. why to bloat
.orig.tar.gz if there is an easy way to avoid it, while also making
100%-proof that contained copy of 3rd party code is used instead of
system-wide one.
You can "rm -rf" it early in the build process to assure that. E.g., if
you use dh, override_dh_auto_configure is a convenient place. :)
another aspect, as I hinted, if 3rd party pieces are shipped, their
license/copyright must be listed in debian/copyright -- that might
extend it considerably for no good reason...
I didn't look at nuitka (recently), but d/copyright for scons in the
archive is very simple, so I don't expect the cost to be high.
not sure if just a referral to copyright file of the corresponding
package would be appropriate.
I don't think it would be appropriate.
(optionally add +dfsg or .dfsg suffix to the version making it
0.3.17~pre2+dfsg-1)
Since the software would be repackaged for reasons that are unrelated
to DFSG compliance, the "dfsg" suffix would be incorrect/confusing.
yeah -- agreed... shame on me though that I did use it this way many
times just to hint on having upstream tarball repacked -- I did feel
that it is inappropriate but just didn't listen to myself. Well, ok --
for some I did stopped carrying +dfsg -- eh, inconsistent me ;)
do we have another commonly used suffix for such cases?
I believe that +ds suffix is quite popular. See also bug #499167
or should no suffix being added at all and just debian/README.Debian
(or debian/README.Debian-source) mention repackaging?
Repacking should be documented somewhere regardless of whether a special
suffix is used or not. Unfortunately, Policy and Developer's Reference
disagree on which file should be used for this purpose (d/README.source
or d/copyright). See bug #561494.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120102203358.ga6...@jwilk.net
