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

Re: definition of contrib & buildd inconsistency



On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 04:37:25PM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote:

> Hello All:

> The definition of the contrib section of the archive reads [0]

>   Examples of packages which would be included in contrib are:

>       * free packages which require contrib, non-free packages or packages
>         which are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution,

> There is apparently an ambiguity here since a contrib package can
> depend on non-free in two distinct ways:

No, there isn't.  "for compilation or execution" - so if it depends on
packages not in main at build time *or* at run time.

> Which is the correct interpretation?  If both are included, then all
> buildds MUST include non-free sources.

There is no such requirement.  The buildd network has never assumed
responsibility for building packages which build-depend on non-free
packages.

It's possible that most maintainers when confronted with this have simply
opted to move their packages directly to non-free in order to get
autobuilder support.  There are only five packages in contrib currently
affected by this problem (out of 74 total that build architecture-dependent
packages): ifeffit and libpgplot-perl, which b-d on pgplot5;
r-cran-surveillance, which b-d on r-cran-maptools; snes9express, which b-d
on snes9x-x; and suitesparse-metis, which b-d on libparmetis-dev.

(Two other packages have build-dependencies that are satisfied by
main+contrib; and one other package has build-dependencies that aren't
satisfied even with non-free.)

> An alternative which would remove the inconsistency is to make the
> decision that contrib packages will not be built by the officeial
> buildd network but have to be built as non-free packages are, on the
> unofficial buildd network.

If my understanding is current, non-free packages are autobuilt only as a
result of explicit whitelisting indicating that there are no license
problems resulting from doing so.  I think the same would have to be true of
contrib packages, since even *installing* packages from non-free could have
license implications that impact the buildd operators.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: