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

Wed May 26 09:30:09 UTC 2010

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:35:33AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>On Mi, Mai 26, 2010 at 10:10:18 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> 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:

>>>> 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.
>
>yes, from lines 1 to 20. The rest of the file talks about the upstream 
>licensing.

...mentioning which subdir or files each licensing applies to.

Indeed there is first a general section, but as I write above, I 
consider the debian/ subdir as an exception to the general section - as 
I believe is the case for all Debian packages except those where Debian 
is upstream.

>> 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).
>
>Since mencoder is part of mplayer, I thought the licensing was clear,
>but if you find it confusing, we could clarify that in a sentence or
>two in debian/copyright.

Yes, please do.  Not just by mentioning the word "mencoder", but by 
referencing the *file* which is in the (from a licensing perspective) 
unusual place below debian/ .

>>>> 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/
>
>You are completely right that I horribly confused DEP3 and DEP5. We 
>talked about debian/copyright and using patches for that matter feels 
>really strange to me so that I must have skipped that word.

Fair enough.

I talked not only about licensing, though, but more generally about the 
oddity of non-Debian code included not in source tarball and not as a 
patch, but "hidded" among the Debian packaging code.

And specifically I did write "patch" very close to "DEP3" ;-)

I strongly suggest that you follow common patterns instead.

>>>> 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?
>
>it requires additional work overhead to work (diff, update, etc.) with. 
>Commit logs don't contain diff-on-diffs. In case mencoder.c is changed, 
>debdiffs become more readable. Morover, changes are less likely to 
>confuse 'git annotate'.  In short: I find this approach much more 
>practicable and easier to work with.

Thanks for clarifying :-)

I do not like your argument, though: I thought it was meant as 
short-term approach until next release (or snapshot) from upstream, so 
not important if cumbersome to maintain.

I find that debian/ subdir generally contains Debian packaging code 
(which should be covered with a single statement in debian/copyright), 
except for debian/patches/ which contains code from various sources and 
should then in each case be documented (using DEP3 header and if needed 
statements in debian/copyright too).

  - 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/20100526/784f1acc/attachment-0001.pgp>