On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 03:37:06PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:17:26PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > > > > Is it right to put sources in non-US/main when they generate two binary > > > > packages, one in the main archive and the other in non-US main/? > > > > > > One source package can't build binary packages that span both US and non-US > > > archives. You have to have two source packages for that. > > > > But I think if the same source generates binaries for both non-US/main > > and main we can't distribute that source on the US servers (because > > you can still compile the non-US stuff from it). So I guess both the > > source and the binaries have to go to non-US. *sigh* > > It depends on what kind of non-US-ness is in question. I'm not sure... > i'm the actual maintainer of curl packges, sponsored by Bortzmeyer. curl-ssl depends on libssl09 which is on non-us. since curl source makes both curl and curl-ssl, libraries (libssl09-dev) needed to compile -ssl have to be present on the system. so it has to be out of us bounds, in non-US archive. once curl (nossl version) is compiled it is DFSG compliant so it can go in main/web, while curl-ssl goes in non-US/main. given theese notes, why "One source package can't build binary packages that span both US and non-US archives. You have to have two source packages for that"? -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ get my public pgp key at http://www.freeweb.org/free/cavok/
Attachment:
pgp6R7O2K2jAj.pgp
Description: PGP signature