Re: imagemagick and imagemagick-nonfree issue

[Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>]

On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:

> Andreas Tille wrote:
> > In my opinion all things which have a common upstream source
> > should build based on a common base.  I have no overview about
> > the situation of other packages but I think there should be a
> > policy for such cases which avoids doubling upstream sources
> > in the source tree, which could lead to such strange problems.
> 
> Not if the binary packages have to be split between main and non-free.
> Source for non-free binaries must itself be non-free, so it can't go
> in main.  Binary packages in main must have source in main, so it can't
> go in non-free.  The source has to be split.
In my opinion is holding the *same* source in main *and* non-free
makes absolutely no sense. One, i.e. one *.orig.tar.gz file, could
only belong to one section.  May be we should ship the diff file
which leads to the non-free binary in non-free, but doubling the
source is nonsense and leads to bugs as we see.

I'd like the idea to build all binary packages from one source, because
with the source itself no LZW compression can be done.  This only
can be done with the binaries.  But I'm not a lawer.

The other way to avoid bugs which are caused by this strange situation
would be a "Conflicts: imagemagic<all_other_versions_than_this>"
mechanism in the control file, but I don't know, how to suppress
that correctly and as I said, I consider this to be without sense.

Kind regards

        Andreas.