Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned
Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> writes:
> Op di 27-01-2004, om 04:08 schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> > Maybe we could make a list of packages that should be autobuild in
> > contrib/non-free and distribute that to the buildds.
> No, we couldn't. The only requirement for a package to go into non-free
> is "Debian must be allowed to distribute it". That does not include
> automated compilation (or even compilation, for that matter) or porting
> the thing to a different architecture. Apart from that, many autobuilder
> admins (including me) will simply not want to run an autobuilder
> building non-free packages.
How about contrib?
There are reasons for packages being in contrib or non-free which
don't make me "hate" them, like the deb will Depend on something
non-free. The list should only contain packages we can legally build
and don't violate our personel or Debian philosophy (too much).
I don't see a problem with building GPL software that depends on
something outside of debian for example. Or software with a software
patent on it (which is void where I am, thank god.).
If I stick a non-free package in build/REDO (e.g. if someone asks me
to build it for example) will the buildd reject it or does that work
> (No, that doesn't mean I won't build a non-free package if the
> maintainer asks for it, which I have done in the past, but that's a
> different question)
> > > >- FTBFS or RC bugs
> > > Don't include packages with "Keep this out of testing" RC bugs.
> > Too lazy to look at every package, sorry.
> That's OK, but then don't start pointing fingers. Thanks.
I will get them when I run through unclaimed packages in details. For
the list i just assumed that anything kept out of sarge for a reason
like being a unstable release or cvs snapshot would get updated more
frequently than 100 days. Whats the point of a cvs snapshot otherwise?
I know its not perfect, already removed 2 packages I previously didn't