Debian Bug report logs - #561494
devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking

version graph

Package: developers-reference; Maintainer for developers-reference is Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>; Source for developers-reference is src:developers-reference.

Reported by: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:30:05 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version developers-reference/3.4.3

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#561494; Package developers-reference. (Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:30:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:30:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:28:18 -0800
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.3

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:45:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

> > while checking the section 6.7.8.2 of the Developers reference
> > (“Repackaged upstream source”) in the context on another thread on this
> > list
> > (http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/d921045c2e3ae5ecfba088e9d82eb2c6@drazzib.com),
> > I found the following :

> >   A repackaged .orig.tar.gz

> >      1. should be documented in the resulting source package. Detailed
> >      information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on how
> >      this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright. It
> >      is also a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in your
> >      debian/rules file that repeats the process, as described in the
> >      Policy Manual, Main building script: debian/rules.

> > I have no strong opinion on the subject, but I think that either the
> > Developers Reference should be modified to reflect current consensus and
> > practice, or in contrary the section 6.7.8.2 of the Dev. Ref. argues for
> > the incorporation of the removing information in the DEP-5
> > machine-readable format.

> I personally still believe this information belongs in debian/copyright,
> not in README.source.  README.source might be appropriate if there are
> detailed instructions required for how someone else would create a new
> upstream source tarball, but debian/copyright is the appropriate location
> to describe the provenance of the upstream tarball, which in my opinion
> should include a human-readable description of transformations applied to
> it.

I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in
README.source rather than in debian/copyright; however, I think the more
important issue here by far is that policy and the devref currently
recommend including the same information in two different places, and this
duplication is bad and inevitably leads to *both* locations being unreliable
sources for this information.  Moving this to a bug on the devref (per my
personal preference); if consensus is that debian/copyright is the right
place for this, then we can reassign it to policy, but one way or the other
one of these documents should be changed to agree with the other.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#561494; Package developers-reference. (Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:21:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:21:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 561494@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>
To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 561494@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#561494: devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:54:21 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 08:28:18AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 3.4.3
> 
> I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in
> README.source rather than in debian/copyright; however, I think the more
> important issue here by far is that policy and the devref currently
> recommend including the same information in two different places, and this
> duplication is bad and inevitably leads to *both* locations being unreliable
> sources for this information.  Moving this to a bug on the devref (per my
> personal preference); if consensus is that debian/copyright is the right
> place for this, then we can reassign it to policy, but one way or the other
> one of these documents should be changed to agree with the other.

I would like to say that I agree with you, and that I too prefer README.source
over debian/copyright, for various reason including that source repackaging 
shoule have no effect on the copyright status of the binary package, so it
is quite sufficient to be documented in the source package only.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#561494; Package developers-reference. (Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:51:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Thibaut Paumard <mlotpot.news@free.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:51:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 561494@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thibaut Paumard <mlotpot.news@free.fr>
To: 561494@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Debian Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Fwd: devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:37:49 +0100
Sorry, my answer went to "submit" instead of the right bug.

Copy sent again to d-devel to allow answers to go to the bug report.

Début du message réexpédié :

> Réenvoyé-De : debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> De : Thibaut Paumard <mlotpot.news@free.fr>
> Date : 18 décembre 2009 14:17:09 HNEC
> À : Debian Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, Debian  
> Bug Debian BTS submit <submit@bugs.debian.org>
> Objet : Rép : devref and policy should agree on where to document  
> tarball repacking
>
>
> Le 17 déc. 09 à 17:28, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>
>> Package: developers-reference
>> Version: 3.4.3
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:45:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
>>
>>>> while checking the section 6.7.8.2 of the Developers reference
>>>> (“Repackaged upstream source”) in the context on another thread  
>>>> on this
>>>> list
>>>> (http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/d921045c2e3ae5ecfba088e9d82eb2c6@drazzib.com 
>>>> ),
>>>> I found the following :
>>
>>>> A repackaged .orig.tar.gz
>>
>>>>    1. should be documented in the resulting source package.  
>>>> Detailed
>>>>    information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on  
>>>> how
>>>>    this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright.  
>>>> It
>>>>    is also a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in your
>>>>    debian/rules file that repeats the process, as described in the
>>>>    Policy Manual, Main building script: debian/rules.
>>
>> [...]
>> I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in
>> README.source rather than in debian/copyright;
>
> Hi,
>
> I believe this belongs in copyright. This is based on two  
> considerations:
>
> 1) debian/copyright is (should be) the central repository for legal  
> information for the source package as well as for all the binary  
> packages it builds;
>
> 2) most free licenses require to clearly specify modifications to  
> licensed work. Deleting files is to be considered a modification of  
> the source package, which _is_ the licensed work.
>
> By the same token, I am starting to realise that we should also  
> certainly specify in debian/copyright that some files have been  
> patched. If using a patch system, the files are not modified in the  
> source package, but still the binary packages are built with or even  
> ship modified files. Also the details of the modifications belong  
> elsewhere, I think debian/copyright should clearly state that our  
> package is derived work, not the original, unmodified work.
>
> What is not clear to me is whether we need to list all the files  
> that are modified (or removed), or whether a generic "this work may  
> have been modified prior to inclusion in Debian" is sufficient (in  
> debian/copyright).
>
> Best regards, Thibaut.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#561494; Package developers-reference. (Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:51:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:51:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 561494@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
To: Thibaut Paumard <mlotpot.news@free.fr>
Cc: 561494@bugs.debian.org, Debian Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#561494: Fwd: devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:48:07 -0800
Thibaut Paumard <mlotpot.news@free.fr> writes:

>> 2) most free licenses require to clearly specify modifications to
>> licensed work. Deleting files is to be considered a modification of the
>> source package, which _is_ the licensed work.
>>
>> By the same token, I am starting to realise that we should also
>> certainly specify in debian/copyright that some files have been
>> patched. If using a patch system, the files are not modified in the
>> source package, but still the binary packages are built with or even
>> ship modified files. Also the details of the modifications belong
>> elsewhere, I think debian/copyright should clearly state that our
>> package is derived work, not the original, unmodified work.

Our historical stance on this part of the problem is that debian/changelog
is sufficient documentation for what changes have been made to the package
(although that does imply that one needs to document in debian/changelog
what changes you're making).

This is consistent with the FSF's stance that the ChangeLog file is
sufficient to satisfy the GPL requirement that changes be documented
(since the GPL is one of the licenses with the most restrictive
requirements about change notices).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#561494; Package developers-reference. (Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:09:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:09:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 561494@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Thibaut Paumard <mlotpot.news@free.fr>, 561494@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#561494: Fwd: devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:05:46 -0800
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 02:37:49PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
>>I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in
>>README.source rather than in debian/copyright;
>
>Hi,
>
>I believe this belongs in copyright. This is based on two
>considerations:
>
>1) debian/copyright is (should be) the central repository for
>legal information for the source package as well as for all the
>binary packages it builds;

We're talking about files that have been removed and are consequently *not*
part of the source package.  Even if we conclude that debian/copyright is
the right place to document *what* has been removed from the upstream
source, I certainly disagree that this would include documenting the
*license* of the removed files in debian/copyright, and that's not what has
been asked for here.  At most, I think best practice is to document what was
removed and give a short explanation of why the removal was necessary; that
doesn't imply reproducing the problematic license, just stating what the
problematic license terms are.

>2) most free licenses require to clearly specify modifications to
>licensed work. Deleting files is to be considered a modification
>of the source package, which _is_ the licensed work.

Deleting files is done when those files don't meet the DFSG, so I don't see
how this can ever be a problem with a free license. :)

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Sun Apr 20 23:39:26 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.