Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi folks,
is there anything I can contribute? It would be great if we could come
closer to the problem I was asking for in the beginning of the year[1]
to get sbt working.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2017/02/msg00239.html
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:42:53PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> > I was asking on IRC #debian-ftp how we can deal with the current
> > deadlock and lamby suggested to ping you again. We are just waiting
> > for advise what to do next. If re-uploading as it was is a sensible
> > thing to do please let us know. If not, what exactly do you expect
> > us to do?
>
> as long as all sources are available in the upload, I think the "buildable
> from source"-requirement can be loosened for bootstrapping the package.
> If I remember correctly, the missing sources and the incomplete
> debian/copyright have been the only reasons for the rejection (except
> somebody else objects now).
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:19:44AM +0200, Frederic Bonnard wrote:
> > > If binary jars for compilation are a problem, what should be done when
> > > for example you have a font file (with DFSG compatible license) that is
> > > used for generating image files at build time and those generated images
> > > will be included in the binary package. Should that source package be
> > > refused because the project didn't include the source of the font file
> > > (which can come from another project) ? (that could be a font file or
> > > any image without the source but with a DFSG license still)
>
> Generally speaking, if you can not build each part of a binary package from
> source, this package can not be in main. Somehow you have to create that
> font file, afterwards you create the images and put them into the binary
> package. This doesn't sound much different from compiled sources!?
>
> Thorsten
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: