In article <13070722.1PDs8778KL@scherben.suse.de>, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> writes:
Adrian> Am Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013, 14:50:20 schrieb Adrian> toganm@opensuse.org: >> >>>>> In article <51B857C9.5060808@suse.de>, Ludwig Nussel Adrian> <ludwig.nussel@suse.de> writes: Ludwig> It might be sufficient to put an rm -r in the spec file and Ludwig> clearly document there that with this you are removing the Ludwig> offending code so there is absolutely no way for it to end Ludwig> up in the binary package. As additional safeguard you could Ludwig> also add some additional grepping on the binaries after make Ludwig> install and fail the build if the offending code somehow Ludwig> sneaked in nevertheless. With those measurements it might be Ludwig> acceptable for legal while still adhering to the pristine Ludwig> source principle. >> This approach makes more sense, though I will get clarification >> from legal if they are happy with this approach. Adrian> sure, that approach is much better. Adrian> However, I thought you speak about cases where even the Adrian> source tar ball must not allow these files. In this case the Adrian> src.rpm still contains the original source tar ball. You are right that is the case since the code in question is patented. The bugzilla is https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824484 I do not know if you would be able to see it. Adrian> But if that is acceptable (depends on your legal issue) it Adrian> is definitive the best way. If it is OK by legal this is the way I would proceed, if not I'll let the list know and see how can I find a solution that makes everyone happy Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org