Diego> ("pylatexenc/latexencode/_uni2latexmap_xml.py" [2]) is: #"Diego" == Diego M Rodriguez <diego@moreda.io> writes:
Hello,
as part of packaging "pylatexenc" [1], I'm unsure on how to properly
declare the license attribution of one of the files in the upstream package. [...]
However, I'm not familiar with the W3C license (nor with d/copyright
finer points). Would it be possible to have advise on whether the assumptions and the current d/copyright is suitable - and help on
correcting otherwise?
[...]
[4] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/python-pylatexenc/-/blob/105ecb9bb8f96b8d253bf8244fd17617af6ea9d2/debian/copyright#L14
From my perspective, you did a relatively adequate job documenting the oddity in
d/copyright. It seems that this file rarely ever (never) changes, so dropping a
copy into d/missing_sources/unicode.xml should definitely happen.
Suggestion --> [...]Thanks for spelling it out!
[...]
Actually, while the upstream tarball (from PyPI) does not include the unicode.xml file, upon closer inspection upstream does include it in
their GitHub releases. If using the release for packaging is technically viable (looks like it will be), would it be preferable from the legal side?
Suggestion --> [...]
:: would it be preferable from the legal side?
Actually, while the upstream tarball (from PyPI) does not include the unicode.xml file, upon closer inspection upstream does include it in
their GitHub releases. If using the release for packaging is technically viable (looks like it will be), would it be preferable from the legal side?
The upstream source (from GitHub in your case) should always be
preferred over the downstream packaging (on PyPI in your case).
Missing files, generated files, extra cruft and other things are
common problems with the downstream redistributions.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 87:30:27 |
Calls: | 6,496 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,100 |
Messages: | 5,277,163 |