On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:48:28 +0200 Jon Boden <j...@ubuntubsd.org> wrote:
> > Hi Steven > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 01:15:33AM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > > My first thought is to use the Version field; that already > > determines what SVN revision is checked out from which branch. If > > it contained something like "+nonfree", get-orig-source could > > retain the non-free stuff, and build targets could alter their > > behaviour. The non-free source package would be easily > > identifiable as such, and as being different from Debian's own. > > > > Can anyone tell me if that's a bad idea for any reason? > > > > It's intended the "+nonfree" would be in the upstream part of the > > version number, so that the .orig.tar.xz gets a new name, e.g. > > 10.3~svn296998-2 -> 10.3~svn296998+nonfree-2 > > though I'd happily grep the entire version string for it, and still > > try to do the right thing in case someone mistakenly did: > > 10.3~svn296998-2+nonfree > > Works for me. Would you like a patch to do that? > > > I'm considering to also add +nonfree to the abiname when building > > non-free source. Side effects are that this appears in `uname -a` > > output and the names of binary packages; it makes them > > co-installable with the original DFSG kernels, and GRUB2 would give > > them separate menu entries. > > If it's going to be so exposed, could we use something that doesn't > have as much negative connotation? Internally the build system uses > "sourceless". How does that sound? The term non-free is quite accurate in this case. It's not as if the target audience of Ubuntu are free software purists anyway- no one will notice or care. Why hide the fact?
pgppbpAgHU0g6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
