Ole, hello.
On 2012 Feb 16, at 09:29, OlŠµ Streicher wrote:
> to build build the libraries from the starlink repository for Debian, I
> would need to create a small packagage just containing the
> "buildsupport/starconf" directory as source, which installs a starconf
> file to /usrt/share/aclocal/. This this is an extra package, I need to
> document its copyright.
>
> Would you mind to put a small copyright statement in the header of
> starconf.in and/or component.xml, stating that it is GPL? That would
> make the state of this sub-package clear to my reviewers.
I've prepared a patch for this (attached), partly for old times' sake and partly for practice with git. But is it really necessary to include part of the (in principle unstable) build bootstrap process as a Debian package? (I'm not saying it's not, just expressing surprise).
I would have thought it would be more useful (in the sense of simpler and more stable) to prepare the Debian package in some 'post-starconf' state or at least with the starconf macros copied into the package directory, thus avoiding a dependency which doesn't exist for any functional reason, but simply because the package originates from a larger software set.
I appreciate that there's the requirement to have the source 'in the form in which it would be worked on' (or language to that effect). But while I can see the point of this for avoiding obfuscated code, I'd be surprised if this was intended to require the inclusion of random build-system noise. A post-starconf system would be perfectly good for working with, and as a starting point for creating and submitting patches.
As I say, I'm curious.
All the best,
Norman
--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
|