Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

[Santiago Vila]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Robert Millan wrote:

> I think we meet all of these except the last one.  Any comments?
> 
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > - binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source
> >   (required, among other reasons, for license compliance)

We clearly do not meet this one, as there are lots of packages that we
have had to fork for config.{sub,guess}, libtool, and other things.

While we are at it, I think it's about time to change the "relaxed"
upload policy for ftp.gnuab.org. Every package which is not the exact
result of compiling the Debian source from ftp.debian.org *must* be
produced from a modified Debian source package that we also ship.

This is not only required for license compliance, as pointed out by
Steve, it also helps the official package maintainer to incorporate
the changes in the Debian package easily, as it should be crystal
clear from the NMU what exactly had to be changed. Frankly, I never
bought the theory that "trivial" changes are allowed to violate the
license. There is no such thing as a "trivial" change.

> > - the architecture must have successfully compiled 50% of the archive's
> >   source (excluding architecture-specific packages)

Hmm, do we have any figure for this?