[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:59:36 +0200, Wesley W Terpstra <wesley@terpstra.ca> said: 

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 01:33:07PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette writes:
>> > Main must be built with only packages from main.
>> Packages in main must be _buildable_ with only packages from main.

> Interesting.

> This slight difference in wording sounds to me like I would indeed
> be able to include prebuit object files, so long as the package
> could be built without them. Is that correct?


> The actual text in policy is:
> * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
>   execution
> (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or
> "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package)

> This wording appears to back up what you say (John).  The clause
> 'must not require' is fine with my case. Since the source files can
> be rebuilt with gcc, icc is not required. Execution is a non-issue.

	Don't ignore the dfsg. Only free software in main.  Also,
 there is a practical reason for requiring the .deb we ship to be the
 same (or close) to the .deb people can build in their own buildd.
 Our users need to be able to debug problems -- and if the stuff they
 build in a buildd behaves significantly differently (or displays
 bugs), it is up to us to fix them.

	We should not fool people into believing that things they
 believe to be free (in main) are more capable than they would be if
 built with free software. This hurts us in the long run since the use
 of non-free software scratches an itch that would otherwise may have
 provided motivation to improve the free software.

You're dead, Jim. McCoy, "Amok Time", stardate 3372.7
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: