Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> > - binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source >> > (required, among other reasons, for license compliance) > >> Is this a simple sanity requirement (i.e. no hacked crap being >> uploaded to the archive), or does it imply that all packages in base >> (or base + build-essential) need to be buildable from unmodified >> source? > > I assume what you're asking here is whether non-GNU/Linux ports have to > have the same base system as the GNU/Linux ports do. This was not > implied. The implication here is that you can't have a separate version > of the same source package for your architecture just because the > maintainer isn't willing to accept patches.
There might be an other case where a changed source package might be needed: People are talking about releases of tier-2 arches which are made by the porter teams, and made on the basis of a major release. If there was still a FTBFS-on-tier-2 bugs (not RC!) in a package, a source change is needed for such a tier-2-arch release; it's not possible to simply take unstable sources where the fix has been applied. To me, this would still be "unmodified Debian source", it just happens to be a different version; I guess license-wise there is no problem with that. It might be a problem with disk space and archive maintenance, however. Would it be possible, from the ftp-masters point of view, to have not only the stable sources of the released architectures in the archive, but additionally also the patched sources for tier-2 arches? Of course the different porter teams of tier-2 arches would have to coordinate, so that one changed stable-plus-tier2-patches source version is sufficient. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer