Re: Bug#30739: When a tiny part of a package uses non-free libraries
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 09:57:02AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Brian Mays wrote:
> > > a non-free component, it should be in contrib. Just a bit different
> > > perspective, to think about this from the point of view of a developer
> > > who doesn't want to be foreced to install non-free components to build
> > > a package properly, rather than from the POV of a user.
> > If the developer doing a NMU of the package doesn't want libforms-dev
> > on his system, then fine. The pcmcia-cs source will build a package
> > without the cardinfo binary, which can be used for the NMU. I don't
> > see how this is any different than splitting the cardinfo into a
> > separate deb which won't be built if libforms-dev isn't installed. Or
> > do we have to split the source in two? Well, so much for preserving
> > pristine upstream sources.
> At which point in time, the NMU will lack functionality that the original
> package had, and someone will file a bug that cardinfo vanished. Policy
> is QUITE CLEAR that you have to be able to build packages in main with
> only stuff in main. I DON'T CARE if the binary that needs libforms is
> small or insignificant, it is still a policy violation.
I havn't been following this discussion to well...but 2 points come to mind:
A) This *IS* a poocy violation and should be rectified. One way would be
to split cardinfo into a new package which would be in contrib and
suggested by the original package. (and it could then depend on the
library it needs)
(of course one could just take the source code of cardinfo
and put it in an examples dir in the docs. Which would have the added
benefit of helping anyone who wants to write similar software or understand
better how it works ;) - just a random thought )
B) Isn't there a free alternative to that Lib (XForms?) I could have sworn
there was one...will it work? has it been tried? perhaps my memory is
> > I can understand objections on principle, such as RMS recently
> > complaining about free packages suggesting non-free packages. But
> > while we appreciate RMS's attention and suggestions, Debian is it's own
> > entity, and we don't always agree with him (or how many of you want
> > unstripped binaries on your system?). For now, this (arguably) is not
> > against Debian policy, and I don't hate the non-freeness of xforms
> > enough to remove the "Suggests" tag in pcmcia-cs.
> I still believe it is (and always will be) a policy issue, not a "we hate
> libforms" issue. You package grossly violates policy, and I don't see how
> you can argue against that.
hmm I have been wanting to learn gtk (learning a bit from a side project
I have been working on)...if its such an insignifigant program...maybe it
would be easy to "port" to gtk :)
::grabbing the source::
/* -- Stephen Carpenter <email@example.com> --- <firstname.lastname@example.org>------------ */
The Public enemy's not the man who speaks his mind
The Public enemy's the man who goes and acts blind"
-- Anthrax "Keep it in the Fammily"