On 2015-09-06 at 10:46, Daniel Milewski wrote: > I've found a violation of FSDG which affects multiple Ruby packages > containing a file named generator.so (libruby2.1 and ruby-json, > among all). That file is built from file released under a non-free > license. What package I should report the bug against?
This sort of thing is normally handled with an MBF (mass bug filing), as far as I'm aware. Generally an MBF gets discussed in advance on some appropriate mailing list; if there's a Debian Ruby mailing list (which seems likely), you could mention it there and see what people say. As there are only a handful of packages involved in this case, however [1], it might not be unreasonable to just file separate but near-identical bugs against each of the affected packages. [1] On my system (amd64, tracking testing), the command 'apt-file search /generator.so' returns only 7 results: * two from ruby-json * one from libruby2.2 * one from libruby2.2-dbg, which almost certainly shares a source package with libruby2.2 * one from libruby2.1 * one from trafficserver-experimental-plugins, which may be unrelated * one from trafficserver-dbg, which presumably shares a source package with trafficserver-experimental-plugins Since you don't need more than one bug report per source package for a case like this, that makes for a maximum of 5 separate bug reports; if the trafficserver hit turns out to be unrelated, it could be as few as 3. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
