please upload: pd-zexy 2.2.5

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:49, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
>
>> right, makes sense.
>> i adapted pd-zexy accordingly, pushed and now hope for an successfull
>> upload.
> 
> Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in
> debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't match
> any License: paragraph.
> I'm not quite sure what is the dep5 way to deal with this. Most likely
> the exception should be moved into the license paragraph and the
> qualificators to the name (with X exception) removed.
> 

it seems that all those problems only come from the autotools generated
stuff, which is something where i have the feeling that it should not
create problems at all.

i'm therefore wondering, what is the best way to deal with autotools
generated files in general.
so i asked at #debian-mentors (see end of this mail), with the
conclusion (as i read it), that it might probably be best to leave out
generated files from debian/copyright alltogether.

would this be acceptable? for you? what do other think?

would it be a good idea to add a section about howto handle autotools
generated files to the wiki?


fgmasdr
IOhannes





logfile from #debian-mentors

10:10 < zmoelnig> are there any guidelines about what should go into
debian/copyright for autotools-generated files?
10:11 < zmoelnig> i maintain a smallish package that is GPL2
10:11 < zmoelnig> but it uses autoconf/libtool
10:12 < zmoelnig> my debian/copyright ends up to be mostly about the
license exceptions for autoconf et co.
10:12 < zmoelnig> which somehow feels wrong
10:15 < algernon> In my opinion, debian/copyright should document the
license of the sources (and any assets), not that of generated files
during compilation.
10:15 < algernon> that is, the license of autotools generated files are,
in my opinion, irrelevant there.
10:55 < zmoelnig> algernon: thanks; is there an "official" statement
about that as well?
10:56 < zmoelnig> personally i tend to agree with you
10:56 < zmoelnig> and of course, the autotools generated files do come
with the upstream package, and are in no way marked "special"
10:56 < Tolimar> zmoelnig: Well, there is the Debian Policy and the
Reject FAQ from the ftp-team.
10:57 < Tolimar> FWIW: Even if it's not written down, the ftp-team
doesn't reject for missing autofoo stuff and similar.
11:05 < algernon> zmoelnig: existing practice seems to suggest that not
documenting auto* generated stuff's license is at least acceptable.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk7KJxcACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvTTpACgg7PY14pISEVl2rRkWmo2A1gD
kd4AoOWEkDvi3M3l/V9fepbtLjt5fLt7
=5Oki
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20111121/09526aad/attachment-0001.bin>