Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)
Tanguy Ortolo <email@example.com> writes:
> Le vendredi 13 aoÃ»t 2010, Goswin von Brederlow a Ã©critâ?¯:
>> 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.
> Well, FLA files are compilable into SWF binaries. Using Adobe Flash,
> that is a software outside of main. It is a non-free software, not even
> free as in free beer.
> Is that the problem? Do you mean that the DFSG implicitely require that
> software must be compilable using tools that cost no money?
> Tanguy Ortolo
No. Policy says nothing about the tools needed to compile needing to be
free as in beer.
If you have the FLA files under a DFSG free license in the source and
you Build-Depend on Adobe Flash and do compile them into the SWF binary
during build then the package can be in contrib as I see it. It can't be
in main because of that dependency on tools outside of main.
On the other hand if you simply use a prebuild SWF binary supplied in
the orig.tar.gz then the package belongs in non-free. Users won't be
able to unpack the source, edit it, dpkg-buildpackage and get a modified
binary and that I believe violates the spirit of the DFSG if not the
letter. I don't think anything states specifically that you have to
compile the source on every build but I believe that is essential for
the simple reason of ensuring it can be done.