Re: 2nd call for help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Sorry, I'm not sure you have the right impression of contrib here. Contrib
> packages have to qualify the same standards as the main distribution,
> *except* that they may depend on non-free stuff.
> But the package requirements, the dfsg-compliance and so on are the same.
I posted the copyright earlier. It was generally agreed upon that it
was DFSG-compliant. All of the binaries in the packages can be recreated
with the source code in the package I'm distributing as iraf-common. The
entire package is policy-compliant except that the binaries cannot be
automatically reconstructed via a single debian/rules pass -- it'll have
to be done manually. If you have half a day to spare, you can try it
yourself after downloading only iraf-common (which is now on master). I'm
going with the easy out that Manoj accidentally gave me and calling
this an example of buggy code that is otherwise policy compliant and
therefore falls into the same class of examples in Policy 2.1.3 as:
* packages which we don't want to support because they are too buggy
although the very next example in the same section would cover me
* packages which fail to meet some other policy requirements in a
Non free is described in the next subsection as being for packages
which are not DFSG-compliant, which this package set is, or for packages
encumbered by legal problems, which this package set is not. Barring
massive objections, I'm leaving it in contrib.
Zed Pobre <firstname.lastname@example.org> | PGP key on servers, fingerprint on finger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to email@example.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .