jdong at ubuntu.com
Wed Nov 9 12:58:49 CST 2005
On 11/9/05, Reinhard Tartler <siretart at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/9/05, John Dong <jdong at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > It's understood that the sources are identical to Dapper origins.
> Linking to
> > the upstream source location should definitely be valid GPL-wise.
> He modified a gpl'ed program. So he has to provide the sources to the
> binary he builds. It is not sufficient to just point to the 'upstream
> source location' where the work is based on.
I don't see any evidence that any upstream file, other than the version
field in debian/changelog, was modified during this backport.
I'm generally not that picky. The point here is that I have no
> possibilty to verify that there was really not anything else touched
> than debian/changelog. Using the source package, I could debdiff it
> against the ubuntu package and build it myself. Publishing a binary
> package gains me nothing.
Right, I understand the concern. You don't gain anything from this, but the
rest of the backports users are getting really restless and upset about the
lack of an official breezy-backports branch. As a result, some backports
team members have been releasing their own binary packages in the meantime.
They're not trying to push their work to
archive.ubuntu.com<http://archive.ubuntu.com>-- that'll show up when
the Breezy backports infrastructure comes up. Right
now, they're just providing users some temporary appeasement while waiting
for breezy-backports to appear.
> ubuntu-backports mailing list
> ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-backports