Rejecting squeak-sources3.9

[Jordan Mantha]

Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hi Jordan,
> 
> I reject squeak-sources3{,.9}:
> 
>  * The tar.gz does not have any copyright statement.
>  * The package should not be native, since Ubuntu/Debian is not
>  * upstream.

I'm trying to sync to the the squeak.org Debian maintainer's packages
(http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3616). There isn't a copyright in the
root directory of the source because the source is just distributed as a
single file. The copyright information is in debian/copyright. Debian
policy does not require another copyright statement as far as I know
(Section 12.5). Of course it's fairly trivial to add another copy if
you'd like.

I can understand the issue with it being native. I'm just using the
squeak.org maintainer's packaging here but I imagine the rationale was
that upstream doesn't ship a tarball and we're only distributing a
single file. However, geser did make a good point that these single
files are around 3-4MB so any packaging changes cost quite a bit if we
have to upload the whole thing. On the other hand, these packages are
very unlikely to change as they aren't building anything and all that's
being done is to install a single file.

I'm really not sure I can get the upstream guys to get all these changes
in time to get this in for Hardy. Would it be possible to get these in
now and for Hardy+1 work on converting to non-native packages? I can
reupload non-native versions if that's not possible and just deal with
being totally out of sync with the upstream later.

> Why do we need the old squeak-sources3, too? If 3.9 is the only
> version in Hardy, then we don't need the older 3.7 sources? Also, the
> sources3 package name should be a little less confusing, maybe 3.0 or
> 3.7 or so.

Well, the V3 sources that squeak.org distributes is sources for versions
3.0-3.8 and V3.9 is for 3.9 and beyond. The squeak plugin requires 3.8
so that's why we're also shipping squeak-sources3

-Jordan