[SCM] mplayer packaging branch, master, updated. debian/1.0.rc3+svn20100502-3-4-g32b4f56

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:33:57AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>On Mi, Mai 26, 2010 at 09:17:14 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 06:59:00AM +0000, siretart at users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>>>The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
>>>commit e0636d22570edd78dcc81797f84336ffbd810b95
>>>Author: Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de>
>>>Date:   Wed May 26 08:30:37 2010 +0200
>>>
>>>    copy in mencoder.c from upstream
>>>
>>>    this is a cowboy approach that places mencoder.c in
>>>    debian/mencoder.c. This is of course a gross hack and should be reverted
>>>    on the next upstream upgrade.
>>
>> [ huge patch snippet ]
>>
>>>diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
>>>index 0ba540f..c9c289d 100755
>>>--- a/debian/rules
>>>+++ b/debian/rules
>>>@@ -93,8 +93,12 @@ endif
>>> # https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistCompilerFlags
>>> CLEAN_ENV=env -u CFLAGS -u CPPFLAGS -u LDFLAGS -u FFLAGS -u CXXFLAGS
>>>
>>>+# cowboy in mencoder.c manually fetched from upstream to avoid having to reroll
>>>+# a new upstream tarball. Will be dropped with a new upstream upgrade
>>>+mencoder.c: debian/mencoder.c
>>
>> I fail to see the point in hiding upstream code in the Debian packaging
>> - even without mentioning it in debian/copyright!
>
>mencoder has exactly the same copyright as mplayer itself. My reading of
>debian/copyright does not leave any concerns about the licensing of
>mencoder.  What parts are unclear according to your reading?

debian/copyright states that the packaging (which I read as the contents 
of the debian/ subdir) is owned by Dariush Pietrzak and A Mennucci.

Thank you for telling me here(!) the source and copyright of that 
particular file below debian/ - I would prefer if that information was 
contained in debian/copyright too, or at least in the header of the 
code (stored as a patch, conveniently leaving room for such meta info).


>> I strongly suggest to either place it as a proper patch with DEP3 
>> header, or roll a new tarball.
>
>I disagree here. IMO, DEP3 is still way too much in flux to be 
>seriously considered, please don't force me to use it.  Moreover, DEP3 
>(currently) mandates a lot of very annoying and hairsplitting work by 
>considering each and every source file which is not exactly required by 
>debian policy. My opinion might change if DEP3 matures and #472199 
>makes progress.

It seems to me that you are talking about DEP5 - the proposed (status: 
draft) machine-readable debian/copyright file format.  Indeed that one 
is in flux (but not a lot) and even when/if decided it is only optional.

I am talking about DEP3 - the proposed (status: candidate) 
machine-readable debian/patches/ header format.  More info here: 
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/


>> And to document its licensing if placed below debian/ .
>
>I could also have added it as patch in debian/patches, but I think that
>would have been even sillier.

Why do you find that sillier?


>BTW, exactly this approach has been used before with the vdpau headers.

That does not surprise me - I never claimed that this was a first ever 
situation.  But it does not change my recommending to do better.  Why 
not?


 - Jonas

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20100526/8d330094/attachment.pgp>