Le jeudi 12 août 2010, Charlie Smotherman a écrit : > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 20:31 +0200, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: >> I thought they were only failing one policy condition to be in the free >> area, but not the DFSG. As the policy section 2.2.2 says: >> > Every package in contrib must comply with the DFSG. >> >> So if such a non-recompilable, free-licensed binary fails the DFSG, it >> should not even go to contrib, but to non-free! > > You may want to look at this thread > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/08/msg00082.html I did. Especially to the message <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/08/msg00093.html>. I am just a newbie, so I shall not risk myself to interpret the DFSG, but, if not being compilable with free tools is a DFSG failure, then, according to the policy section 2.2.2: >> Every package in contrib must comply with the DFSG. then, with no possible ambiguity, such tools should not go to contrib, but to non-free. Anyway, this is just pure curiosity, and I have time to discover that, as I am not facing this exact problem with any package, but a slightly different one: should I strip non-recompilable binaries only from the binary package or from the original tarball? -- Tanguy Ortolo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature