[Pkg-mol-devel] TODO

[Gaudenz Steinlin]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:08:18PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:01:04PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 01:27:44PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> > > The question that popped in my mind is what is exactly considered
> > > non-free in mol-drivers-maxosx? I know for sure mol-drivers-macos is
> > > in contrib, because to work, it relies on an external ROM image for
> > > the OldWorld PowerMac that you have to own.
> > 
> > AFAIK you need a proprietary compiler to build the drivers, but the code
> > itself is free. I'm not sure if this means contrib or non-free. For sure
> > it can not go into main, because packages in main have to be built using
> > only things in main. 
> 
> Okay, I will look at it...

All the source code can be obtained from http://mol.bkbits.net/. AFAICS
all code is under the GPL, but some code must be built under classic
MacOS. I'm not sure if there is also code to be built under MacOS X.
These parts are distributed as binaries in the mol "source" tarball.

> 
> > > > - Should we put dfsg into the upstream version number like others do? Or
> > > >   call the source package mol-dfsg?
> > > 
> > > I think so, because we are ripping upstream non-free parts.
> > 
> > I prefer to rename the source package (not the binaries). Do you have
> > any preference?
> 
> My preference goes for not touching anything in either the name of
> the source package or the names of the binary packages. Let's rather
> modify the version part before the hyphen Debian revision number.

I'm a bit afraid that this will not play well with the version
comparison of apt and dpkg. Especially when changing the scheme in the
future (eg. because we no longer have to rip apart the upstream
tarball). Therefore I prefere to rename the source package. I think this
will have the least side effects.

> 
> > > > - add tarballs of non-main parts to SVN
> > > 
> > > Maybe rather FTP?
> > 
> > I would rather put all things in the same location. What's the advantage
> > of having them on FTP?
> 
> Well, if the source code contains non-free software, it is better to
> have it out of the SVN. It is definitely removable in a FTP, but it
> is not in a SVN, except if you destroy the SVN and rebuild it. From
> experience, I had to do that when Piotr committed a non-free HFS
> binary bootblock in the Debootloaders SVN repository.

I don't think there is any non-free software in MOL in the sense that it
would be illegal to distribute it. So no problem there. To be relly GPL
compliant we should probably also offer the source downloaded from the
mol bkbits repository. 

Does alioth offer FTP space for projects? If yes we could use that or
http://pkg-mol.alioth.debian.org/. I'd prefer the latter, because it is
nowdays more common to offer downloads via HTTP and because HTTP does
not cause problems with NAT like FTP.

gaudenz

-- 
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mol-devel/attachments/20060822/8ff7f662/attachment.pgp