On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 23:49 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 14, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote: > > > Well, in that case we can ship alot more .bin files from qemu > > sources too, and build these on corresponding architecturs like > > already mentioned (to verify the result is still the same). > > Additional x86 ROMs, sparc ROMs, this PPC ROM, ... > > > > The only problem is to get some real agreement on this. > This is an old issue which is well established, widely agreed and > does not really need to be discussed again. The facts are: > - if the source and the tools to build them are in Debian, then > there is no DFSG issue Right, absolutely. > - if some binary is shipped in the source package and not rebuilt > automatically every time the package is built, then this is acceptable > as long as the security team will not complain > > So I recommend that you ship this tiny program pre-built and add a > target to debian/rules which manually rebuilds it. > > > Allowing such packaging may act as a bad example in the future. > We have already allowed them for a very long time. > I cannot think of any examples right now, but I remember having this > same conversation on debian-devel@ at least twice. firmware-free (which doesn't even have the debian/rules target, but I'll look into it if the sources ever do change). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Logic doesn't apply to the real world. - Marvin Minsky
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part