Re: Package with non-free build-depends
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 10:34, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Colin Walters writes ("Re: Package with non-free build-depends"):
> > Now, I'm not sure where we would list such a rule about source packages
> > and preferred modification form; it doesn't really seem to belong in the
> > Social Contract or the DFSG. It mostly just seems like "common sense";
> > but it's easy to violate it in little ways, and those set precedents for
> > bigger ways.
> It seems to me obvious that a source package should contain source
I would think so too, but given that prominent developers were
suggesting otherwise in this thread, perhaps it isn't entirely obvious.