Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)"):
> Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
> > If you have this situation you have to have two separate source
> > packages; one in main which builds only the free parts, and one in
> > non-free which builds only the non-free parts.
> I don't believe this is correct. Source packages in main can build
> binaries in contrib, and I believe the problem with not being able to
> rebuild with free tools is more of a contrib thing than a non-free thing.
Well, some maintainers have been rebuilding source packages to remove
things like RFCs and non-free-GFDL documentation. Perhaps not
> But I'm not certain, which is why I was hesitating to reply to the first
It looks like there's confusion in this area. Perhaps policy could be