Re: please build core++ and cgal on amd64

[Joachim Reichel <joachim.reichel@gmx.de>]

Hi,

>>It might not list a machine, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.  I
>>think we have one, but I'm not 100% sure.  The stats it's showing also
>>don't make any sense at all.

I don't think there is one. Otherwise, the machine is totally overloaded
since the packages would have been in the queue for 1.5 months now. I
will ping Andreas again.

>>Anyway, it doesn't have "XS-Autobuild: yes" header, nor does it mention
>>anything in the copyright file that gives me an indication that it's
>>legal for me to actually upload a binary package.
> 
> So core++ does have it, cgal doesn't.  I of course only looked at cgal
> before.

core++ has the additional header and the notice in the copyright file
because it was necessary to upload a new revision anyway. I locally made
the same changes for cgal but don't think these changes warrant a new
upload. The non-free buildd network does not require these changes for
now, but strongly recommends them for the next upload.

Just for the records: cgal is in non-free due to the QPL license. It is
ok to autobuild the package and to upload binary packages to non-free.

Cheers,
  Joachim

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, however, there is.