Re: "Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

2004-01-22 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:54AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from > ftp.gnu.org. Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their > rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info > documentation.

Re: "Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

2004-01-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:24:13AM +, James Troup wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As a question of principle, I also believe this is the correct > > practice because of the contract we've made stating that everything > > in our main archive is covered by the freedoms lis

Re: "Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

2004-01-21 Thread James Troup
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate >> overrides changes) to non-free/doc? This would mean that the GFDL >> documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but >> distributed in binary form in the correct packag

Re: "Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

2004-01-21 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:54AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary > packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support > files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation > (GFDL). >

"Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

2004-01-21 Thread Scott James Remnant
A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from ftp.gnu.org. Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info documentation. The package as it currently stands has needed no modification and it consti