On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
> upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
> you need a non-free compiler. The fact that you can also compile the
> sources with a free compiler is irrelevant; non-free tools are still
> required to create the package actually in main. Policy doesn't say
If that is important, then we must throw all packages which are built
using an outdated glibc, binutils, or gcc out of the archive; because
the tools used to build those packages are no longer in main (no,
snapshot.debian.net doesn't count); and building something which was
built, e.g., 4 months ago using the then-current unstable toolchain,
will not produce the exact same package as it would today -- it would
produce...
> "you must be be able to build a package similar to the one in main using
> tools in main";
...a package similar to the one in main.
Your point?
Also, consider the fact that in the past (at least if I'm not mistaken),
the m68k kernel maintainer used to provide m68k kernel packages built
using a cross-compiler on his i386 system. Since the cross-compiler
isn't in main, should those m68k kernels have been moved to the
'contrib' archive?
> it says "the package in main must be buildable with tools in main".
That is still the case. The fact that the package in main is built using
non-free tools is irrelevant -- it can be rebuilt using software only in
main; it can be ran using software only in main; and the difference is
not noticeable except by comparing checksums, benchmarks, or to those
with an intimate knowledge in compiler optimizers.
A difference in optimization is not relevant to a package's freedom.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature