Re: ITP enhydra

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Monday 4 September 2000, at 2 h 22, the keyboard of Matt Zimmerman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian
> source package, as it is architecture-independent?  Or must it compile from 
> the
> Java source?

If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the sources. IMHO (but 
IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE TO be able to compile it from 
the sources.

For programs written in C, it goes without saying, but it seems some Debian 
packagers forget this, because upstream Java packages usually come with the 
binary, a binary which is often very difficult to regenerate (which reminds me 
the time of Ultrix, where Digital accepted to ship the sources, but they were 
almost impossible to compile, if you wanted to reboot your Vax with a patched 
version).

Re: ITP enhydra

[Matt Zimmerman]

[CCed to:
debian-java, where this thread originated
the wnpp bug for Enhydra
debian-devel, to get broader input on source packaging issues

Please trim CC list as appropriate]

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:55:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the
> sources. IMHO (but IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE
> TO be able to compile it from the sources.

Well, there don't seem to be any copyright restrictions on the output
of JavaCC, so if I could get hold of the generated Java source, I
could repackage the upstream source to include it.  Then, a useful
subset of it could be compiled from source using only free tools.

However, this would inhibit modification, as anyone wanting to modify
the JavaCC-generated files would want to regenerate them, not edit the
unwieldy auto-generated code.

I can't even download JavaCC from
, its current home, without
registering as a user on the site.  Various mailing list messages,
etc. point out that the software is not redistributable.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: ITP enhydra

[David Starner]

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:22:41PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:55:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 
> > If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the
> > sources. IMHO (but IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE
> > TO be able to compile it from the sources.

Even if it's in non-free, it's nice to have sources, especially
if the license will permit modifications.
 
> Well, there don't seem to be any copyright restrictions on the output
> of JavaCC, so if I could get hold of the generated Java source, I
> could repackage the upstream source to include it.  Then, a useful
> subset of it could be compiled from source using only free tools.
> 
> However, this would inhibit modification, as anyone wanting to modify
> the JavaCC-generated files would want to regenerate them, not edit the
> unwieldy auto-generated code.


Then it could go into contrib. It's free, but depends on something
outside of Debian to build.

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org
I knew all of the floors in my high school, and none of the ceilings.
- Chris Painter

Re: ITP enhydra

[John Leuner]

> > it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian
> > source package, as it is architecture-independent?  Or must it compile from 
> > the
> > Java source?
> 
> If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the sources. IMHO (but 
> IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE TO be able to compile it 
> from 
> the sources.
> 
> For programs written in C, it goes without saying, but it seems some Debian 
> packagers forget this, because upstream Java packages usually come with the 
> binary, a binary which is often very difficult to regenerate (which reminds 
> me 
> the time of Ultrix, where Digital accepted to ship the sources, but they were 
> almost impossible to compile, if you wanted to reboot your Vax with a patched 
> version).

It's interesting that you if can run a Java "binary" you'll also be able
to build the sources very easily. This is because Java is always linked at
run time, so the build-time and run-time dependencies are the same.

John Leuner

Re: ITP enhydra

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Monday 4 September 2000, at 2 h 22, the keyboard of Matt Zimmerman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian
> source package, as it is architecture-independent?  Or must it compile from the
> Java source?

If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the sources. IMHO (but 
IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE TO be able to compile it from 
the sources.

For programs written in C, it goes without saying, but it seems some Debian 
packagers forget this, because upstream Java packages usually come with the 
binary, a binary which is often very difficult to regenerate (which reminds me 
the time of Ultrix, where Digital accepted to ship the sources, but they were 
almost impossible to compile, if you wanted to reboot your Vax with a patched 
version).



--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ITP enhydra

[Matt Zimmerman]

[CCed to:
debian-java, where this thread originated
the wnpp bug for Enhydra
debian-devel, to get broader input on source packaging issues

Please trim CC list as appropriate]

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:55:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the
> sources. IMHO (but IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE
> TO be able to compile it from the sources.

Well, there don't seem to be any copyright restrictions on the output
of JavaCC, so if I could get hold of the generated Java source, I
could repackage the upstream source to include it.  Then, a useful
subset of it could be compiled from source using only free tools.

However, this would inhibit modification, as anyone wanting to modify
the JavaCC-generated files would want to regenerate them, not edit the
unwieldy auto-generated code.

I can't even download JavaCC from
, its current home, without
registering as a user on the site.  Various mailing list messages,
etc. point out that the software is not redistributable.

-- 
 - mdz


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ITP enhydra

[David Starner]

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:22:41PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:55:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 
> > If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the
> > sources. IMHO (but IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE
> > TO be able to compile it from the sources.

Even if it's in non-free, it's nice to have sources, especially
if the license will permit modifications.
 
> Well, there don't seem to be any copyright restrictions on the output
> of JavaCC, so if I could get hold of the generated Java source, I
> could repackage the upstream source to include it.  Then, a useful
> subset of it could be compiled from source using only free tools.
> 
> However, this would inhibit modification, as anyone wanting to modify
> the JavaCC-generated files would want to regenerate them, not edit the
> unwieldy auto-generated code.


Then it could go into contrib. It's free, but depends on something
outside of Debian to build.

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org
I knew all of the floors in my high school, and none of the ceilings.
- Chris Painter


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ITP enhydra

[John Leuner]

> > it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian
> > source package, as it is architecture-independent?  Or must it compile from the
> > Java source?
> 
> If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the sources. IMHO (but 
> IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE TO be able to compile it from 
> the sources.
> 
> For programs written in C, it goes without saying, but it seems some Debian 
> packagers forget this, because upstream Java packages usually come with the 
> binary, a binary which is often very difficult to regenerate (which reminds me 
> the time of Ultrix, where Digital accepted to ship the sources, but they were 
> almost impossible to compile, if you wanted to reboot your Vax with a patched 
> version).

It's interesting that you if can run a Java "binary" you'll also be able
to build the sources very easily. This is because Java is always linked at
run time, so the build-time and run-time dependencies are the same.

John Leuner


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ITP enhydra

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Monday 4 September 2000, at 21 h 25, the keyboard of John Leuner 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> It's interesting that you if can run a Java "binary" you'll also be able
> to build the sources very easily. This is because Java is always linked at
> run time, so the build-time and run-time dependencies are the same.

This is clearly wrong:

- your compiler may fail with some Java constructs (a common problem with gcj),
- your compiler may do checks "just in case" for classes you will not use.

Also, most Java programs come without any sort of Makefile (or Ant file or 
anything like that). The upstream author says it's because "you don't need to" 
recompile (which shows their contempt for free software). Finding the 
dependencies, in order to write a Makefile (or debian/rules), while always 
possible, is not obvious and is a problem with several Java programs.




--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]