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

Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)

[Tanguy Ortolo]
> 2. Policy §2.2.1 is about packages. A source package containing some
> non-compilable-with-software-in-main code, but which rules do not make
> use of that code, neither by compiling it, nor by copying it to the
> binary package (that is, rules that /strip/ that code) needs, no package
> outside of main for compilation or execution.

I am inclined to agree with you.  This in fact reminds me of the issue
Steve Langasek brought up two years ago:


wherein he complains that the ftpmasters were requiring him to document
licenses for things not shipped in binary packages, in the copyright

I agreed with Steve at the time, that files not shipped in a .deb need
not be documented in /usr/share/doc/foo/copyright shipped in the .deb;
and I agree with you now, that files not shipped in a .deb need not be
subject to our rule about self-hosted building.  Of course they are
still subject to the DFSG.

As a service to the user, of course it's still helpful to document in
the source package why you aren't building or shipping the .swf file.
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/

Reply to: