[Trisquel-devel] [PATCH] Use free snprintf implementation, fixes issue #10713

[Legimet]

I think that's OK. Look at DATA/unzip/match.patch, which does the same thing.

We shouldn't remove the file. According to debian packaging guidelines:
"...should, except where impossible for legal reasons, preserve the entire 
building and portablility infrastructure provided by the upstream author. For 
example, it is not a sufficient reason for omitting a file that it is used 
only when building on MS-DOS. Similarly, a Makefile provided by upstream 
should not be omitted even if the first thing your debian/rules does is to 
overwrite it by running a configure script. "

Legimet

On Friday, May 30, 2014 05:16:46 PM Michał Masłowski wrote:
> > This is a patch for using a free snprintf implementation in
> > sane-backends. Thanks
> > to spotrh from Fedora for providing the patch.
> 
> The patch seems to include the whole nonfree code, making it have the
> same licensing issue as the original code.
> 
> Do we need snprintf in this package when glibc provides it?  Wouldn't
> changing the package to fail build if the system has no snprintf and use
> the OS-provided function be simpler?
> 
> If not, use "rm" to remove the old file and add the new one instead of
> patching the nonfree one.
> 
> (I'm not a Trisquel developer.)