On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 02:13:54PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > 2) Do we require that whatever tools are necessary to generate this > code is packaged in Fedora (with all the legal and policy requirements > that this implies)? If we do not, do we require that the code used by > upstream is free software? It's the only way we're able to reliably modify and regenerate that code and/or tell with any confidence what tools were used to build the package we shipped. Being able to actually create modified versions of a package is a pretty big thing, don't you think? > 3) Do we require that building in Fedora always requires regeneration > of this code from the original data? This is likely necessary to ensure that our ability to rebuild doesn't vanish over time. I see no reason to treat this situation any different from other compilation processes happening during the package build. Especially for things like minified Javascript the answer really seems pretty obvious to me: apply the same policy as you'd do for C sources compiled to object code. There may be reasonable exceptions, but I'd consider them pretty rare. Even outside of the context of licensing, I think the concept of "preferred form for modification" is a useful one here. That's what should be in the SRPM and should be compilable by FOSS tools available in Fedora. If upstream development regularly happens by hand-editing a yacc-generated parser and no one touched the original grammar file in years, then sure, it's probably best to ship the generated files. The autoconf issue is ugly and affected packages probably get grandfathered in, but we definitely shouldn't create more of those. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
