FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-31-2008, 02:19 AM
"Margarita Manterola"
 
Default 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <sliedes@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

> I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the
> note "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade." which
> indicates the file is generated using the Glade UI editor. Then I
> checked if these packages have any *.glade* files, which would be the
> Glade projects, i.e. the "source code" (at least in the GPL sense,
> "preferred form of modification") for these. For those of these
> packages for which this is not a false alarm, I believe this would
> fail DFSG #2, and for those being licensed under GPL, it would
> probably make them non-distributable.

No. .c files are still source code. And even taking into account the
"DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE" comment, it doesn't clearly mean that the
author of the program necessarily has not edited it.

We might ask authors to include their .glade files, IF they still have
them (if they don't, then the .c files have already become the actual
source code). But in any case it's not a violation of DFSG #2, since
.c files are still source code. Bugs like these would be wishlist, at
most.

The "preferred form of modification" for this case is quite relative.
Some people do prefer to edit .c files instead of .glade files,
because you don't need a special tool for that.

> The only questionable case I found
> by this sampling is dia, where the file is "generated by Glade and
> then hand-coded to make GNOME optional and add the underline for
> accelerated buttons".

And what's there to question, then?

This is exactly the case I was talking about. Some people might use
glade to generate a .c as a starting point, and then continue editing
the file (or not, but just keep the .c file, once it's been
generated). This is perfectly fine, and we do NOT need the .glade
files used.

--
Besos,
Marga


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 09-07-2008, 06:29 PM
Ian Jackson
 
Default 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

Others have explained why this is not a critical bug in this specific
case. (Although as an aside it seems quite incomprehensible to me
that these projects, and Gnome in general, have effectively thrown
away the source!)

But there was one misunderstanding here which I think is important to
correct:

Manterola writes ("Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source"):
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <sliedes@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> > [ stuff ]
>
> No. .c files are still source code.

This is not correct. `Source code' means (in the words of the GPL)
the preferred form for modification. In many programs the .c code is
automatically generated from some other input in the source tree.
Compilers for some languages even work by translating the source code
to C and feeding it to a C compiler.

The output from code generators and language translators is not
source, even though it may be in C (or some other language that humans
sometimes write). So Sami was right to suspect that there was a
serious problem here and to investigate.

Whether something is source or not cannot be determined simply by
looking at which language it is written in. The question is: if we
wanted to edit this, which file would we need to change ?

If someone somewhere still has the input file, and is generating new
versions of the output, then the input file is still the preferred
form for modification. If the input file is completely lost, or the
output file has been directly edited to the point where the input file
is no longer relevant, then the output file has become the source
code.

I would say that _at the time when these projects were first shipped_
in this state, it _was_ a clear violation (both of our principles and
of the GPL) to do so. If we had noticed at the time that the source
was missing, and insisted that it was provided and that the package
should be built from it, the source would not now be lost.

> We might ask authors to include their .glade files, IF they still have
> them (if they don't, then the .c files have already become the actual
> source code).

If the .glade files can still be found, and the glade2 translator
resurrected and plumbed back into the build system of these programs,
we would be in a much better position. As Sami says, many of these
programs are effectively immutable because editing the autogenerated C
is impractical.

But that's a lot of work. I'm not sure it can be done sensibly in
time for lenny. If such changes _can_ be made in time then they're
probably pretty safe. After all the output from glade2's code
generator can be compared with the current manually-edited files. I'm
not sure if the RMs would agree :-).

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:04 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org