[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Using an updated upstream bibleedit (copyrights fixed)

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

2009/1/28 Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden at fastmail.fm>:
> Daniel Glassey wrote:
>
>> I didn't realise syncs could be made from experimental! Yes, I can
>> upload there once the copyright/license issues are sorted.
>
> Teus already made the relevant changes in the bibledit git repo, and
> announced the result as version 3.5.45.  Of course, this includes all
> other changes made in that repo since 3.5 too.  I confirmed that this
> source tree is 100% OK (it is 100% GPL!) according to licencecheck.
>
> So, we could generate a tarball from git and call that our original
> source, and so package bibledit 3.5.45 -- and risk any bugs resulting
> from those changes.  Or, we can generate a patch containing just the
> copyright/licence changes, and package that plus the official 3.5
> tarball (but then we would still be distributing a tarball that has
> licence issues until the patch we provide with it is applied... is that
> OK??).  Do I need to create a "dfsg" tarball??
>
> I think I'm probably better at technical stuff than legal stuff ... does
> anyone know what the officially Debian-correct and Ubuntu-correct way to
> handle this would be? :)
>
> Jonathan

Right general consensus is that you should have a masively good reason which you can
defend to ftp-masters why you have generated a tarball. At the heart of the source package
and deb package there are checksums of every file including the tarball in self. So for the
sake of security you should be able to check the checksums.

It is generally accepted to pull upstream changes as patches. (especially if it fixes bugs,
licensing is a bug).

Best way though to contact Teus and ask him to publish new tarball (even if it will silently
appear on his website without big announcements).

About patches. I've looked at his git repo. It has no tags so I can't understand what was 3.5.
It would be nice of him to tell us SHA1 commit of 3.5 (and 3.5.45), so that we can pickout 
commits about licensing changes using git, cause then they will cleanly apply and we will be
able to better track them.

Probably he simply did

git push savannah master

This does not push tags to the repo, only the master branch. I do think he used tags locally
so it would be amazing if he did

git push savannah --tags

or explicitly just those two eg. git push savannah v3.5 v3.5.45



-- 
With best regards


Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 270 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-crosswire-devel/attachments/20090128/43db2bc3/attachment.sig>