On Wed, Aug 25 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#592839: dpkg-source option to remove
> files on unpack: debian/source/remove-files"):
>> That was my point. Legally we CAN use those files. But we don't WANT to
>> use them for DFSG reasons.
>
> I think we are in vigorous agreement, but your tone makes me hesitate.
> Let me summarise my understanding:
>
> File status: DFSG-free non-free but Not
> redistributable redistributable
> --------------- ---------------------- ------------------
>
> Presence Can and Currently removed Must be removed,
> in .orig should be from .orig's by some so .orig tarball
> .tar.gz included. maintainers. I think must be repacked.
> this is a waste of
> time.
>
> Removal or May sometimes IMO necessary to Insufficient.
> inhibition be useful to prevent accidental
> by dpkg-src avoid acci- use, and to facilitate
> pattern or dental use. licence review
> rm by rules
>
> Do you agree ? In particular, do you agree that repacking .orig
> tarballs to remove non-free-but-redistributable files (such as RFCs
> and non-free-GFDL docs) is a waste of time ?
Once I have written my watch file, and the urepack script, I
find that the time being wasted lies in the sub-second range. Hardly
something I worry about, really.
manoj
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
version=3
opts=pasv,dversionmangle=s/\.ds// http://www.fvwm.org/download/ \
ftp://ftp.fvwm.org/pub/fvwm/version-2/fvwm-([\d\.]*)\.tar\.gz \
debian debian/urepack
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
--
The sheep died in the wool.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sk22vlai....@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com
