News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Orphaning bcachefs-tools in Debian. Parent comment

Re:Orphaning bcachefs-tools in Debian by acka on Saturday August 31, 2024 @09:31AM (#41408753)
Debian has a Social Contract[1] as well as guidelines {the DFSG}[2] regarding the commitment to only distribute free and open source software that all package maintainers must adhere to. This means that package maintainers must check the licenses of source code and documentation files, clear up any ambiguities by talking to upstream, and (as a last resort) even excise code and/or documentation from Debian's copy of the codebase if it doesn't meet the requirements of the DFSG.

In practise, this means that Debian has to make its own copy of the source code available from a Debian-controlled repository, to ensure that no (accidental or otherwise) change to an upstream source archive can cause non-DFSG compliant Debian source or binary packages to be distributed.

[1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract

[2] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianFreeSoftwareGuidelines

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Orphaning bcachefs-tools in Debian by koverstreet on Saturday August 31, 2024 @11:13AM (#41409451)
That justification doesn't work here - I provide vendored tarballs, so the source code availability argument is moot.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Orphaning bcachefs-tools in Debian by righthand on Saturday August 31, 2024 @11:22AM (#41409508)
But it’s not guaranteed. The Debian way provides a method of allocating responsibility. So if anything does go wrong they can point to a responsible party, the package maintainer. By providing tarball source you’re trying to placate responsibility of some code. You could build those tarballs on a different machine/different OS and any issues wouldn’t technically be your problem because “it’s just deps”.
[ Parent | on HN ]