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

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)"):
>Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>Well, some maintainers have been rebuilding source packages to remove
>>things like RFCs and non-free-GFDL documentation.  Perhaps not
>>everyone has.
> 
> RFCs are definitely non-free because they're unmodifiable.  They can't
> even be in contrib.  [...]

My point stands: it is a waste of everyone's time to repackage
upstream source to remove insufficiently free stuff.

This applies whether the item is non-modifiable, or non-rebuildable,
or whatever.  Obviously it has to be redistributable or we're not
_allowed_ to distribute it, but removing incidental non-free stuff
from source packages is a collossal waste of effort.

Doing so does not advance freedom, because practically no-one is going
to rely more on these files due to us not removing them from our
tarballs, and no upstreams are going to be persuaded to remove them
because of our zealous stance.

It just uses up time which we could spend doing something useful.

Ian.