Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)
Tanguy Ortolo <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Le vendredi 13 aoÃ»t 2010, Goswin von Brederlow a Ã©critâ?¯:
>> The case of non-recompilable binaries just doesn't fall into this
>> category. The non-recompilable binary will never be DFSG free and has to
>> go to non-free, not contrib, imho.
> Again, I think they can be DFSG-free, as the DFSG never mention the need
> for a free compilation chain. And this if it was not the case, according
> to the Policy Â§2.2.2:
The source must be modifiable and for that to have any meaning the
modified source must be compilable into a modified binary. If the DFSG
isn't specific enough on that and common sense doesn't tell you that
then maybe you could propose some wording for it.
>>> very package in contrib must comply with the DFSG.
> then all the software that requires stuff outside of main for building
> should be moved to non-free, according to the Policy Â§2.2.3:
Requiring stuff outside of main for building is not the same as
non-recompilable. The source is compilable (and is compiled during
build) if you install the Build-Depends from outside of main. It just
isn't compilable inside of main. I do see a difference there.
>>> Packages must be placed in non-free if they are not compliant with
>>> the DFSG
> non-free is the only section that allows non-free software.
> In fact, if requirering non-free software for compilation or exectution
> makes something fail at the DFSG, then I do not see the point of the
> contrib section, as defined by the Policy Â§2.2.2:
>>> 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 executionâ?¦
> Tanguy Ortolo
Again, the difference between compilable with stuff outside of main and
non-recompilable at all. Policy 2.2.2 allows contrib to Build-Depend on
packages outside of main. It doesn't excempt them from the DFSG, which
imho indirectly means compilable source.
How does a source fullfill the DFSG if you can modify it but then can
not compile it to get a modified binary? Who is to say the files
claiming to be the source for some non-recompilable binary even is the
source for that binary. Lets make the blanked claim that the source
provided is not the source of the binary. Now prove me wrong.