On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: >[...] > I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile component, if > that "data file" is really some sort of program that has sources which > aren't usable. How is that jar different from a PDF in this way? Unless I'm mistaken, a PDF without sources is an issue, but if the PDF comes with sources, this is not an issue. If you're saying the .jar is the same as the .pdf, then what's wrong with distributing a .jar that has sources? > [...] > > To summarize: Upstream will ship sources for the .jar as well as > > the .jar itself, but the .jar cannot be built from the sources without > > WTK, which is non-free, and cannot be distributed by Debian. So, I'd > > like to distribute the .jar as-is, without removing it from the upstream > > tarball, or rebuilding this .jar before distributing it. Is this > > permitted? > > I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I'd remove the jar from the > remuco upstream tarball and aim to put it in its own contrib package. > > > Also, as mentioned in debian-mentors, there is one such binary > > (not .jar, but .sis) which is distributed within the "gammu" package > > which is in main. Considering gammu's currently sitting in main, surely > > shipping the .jar similarly in remuco (the package I'm working on) > > wouldn't be a problem? > > Does gammu give a justification? I don't see it considered in > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=180632 > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gammu/current/copyright > but there's a link to a gammu-legal post which isn't found. > > I found gnapplet with sources in the contrib bit of the gammu tree. What contrib bit? Isn't the whole of gammu in main? > https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gammu;ver=1.23.1-2;arch=i386;stamp=1236036416 > doesn't seem to mention it being rebuilt. > Can it not be rebuilt from those sources alone? It probably can, with an appropriate compiler. However, I'm not sure there's such a compiler in Debian. > > If it's a bug which has been overlooked, that's something else to fix, > not a reason for remuco to introduce a similar bug. Or perhaps it was a non-issue to begin with. I'll contact Michal Čihař (gammu maintainer) and ask him about it. -- Chow Loong Jin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part