Re: definition of contrib & buildd inconsistency
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Carlo Segre <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
An alternative which would remove the inconsistency is to make the
decision that contrib packages will not be built by the officeial
buildd network but have to be built as non-free packages are, on the
unofficial buildd network.
If my understanding is current, non-free packages are autobuilt only as a
result of explicit whitelisting indicating that there are no license
problems resulting from doing so. I think the same would have to be true of
contrib packages, since even *installing* packages from non-free could have
license implications that impact the buildd operators.
OK, in my case pgplot5 has been whitelisted for many years. Is it
possible to have these contrib packages whitelisted on the non-free
buildd network too?
We are currently reworking the non-free support in the buildd
network. In the long term, we want to be able to build whitelisted
packages, and allow contrib packages to use binaries built from
whitelisted package. This is not done yet, but people (more
specifically, Andreas Barth) are working on it.
Thanks for the information. Do you have any notion about when this might
be completed? I am not trying to be pushy, I just want to be able to make
an informed decision about what to do with my packages for squeeze.
Carlo U. Segre -- Professor of Physics
Associate Dean for Graduate Admissions, Graduate College
Illinois Institute of Technology
Voice: 312.567.3498 Fax: 312.567.3494
email@example.com http://www.iit.edu/~segre firstname.lastname@example.org