Re: Allowed to build-depend a pkg in main on a pkg in non-free?

[Roland Fehrenbacher <rf@q-leap.de>]

>>>>> "S" == Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> writes:

Hi Sven and Adam,

many thanks for your quick answers.

    S> On 2020-09-30 19:31 +0200, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >> 
    >> a quick question to the list, since I didn't find an answer after
    >> a significant time of searching:
    >> 
    >> Is it allowed to have a source package with a build dependency on
    >> a pkg in non-free (in this particular case nvidia-cuda-toolkit)
    >> and resulting binary packages to go partly to main and others to
    >> contrib?

    S> No, see Policy §2.2.1:

    S> In addition, the packages in *main*
    S> 
    S> * must not require or recommend a package outside of *main* for
    S>   compilation or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Pre-
    S>   Depends", "Depends", "Recommends", "Build-Depends", "Build-Depends-
    S>   Indep", or "Build-Depends-Arch" relationship on a non-*main* package
    S>   unless that package is only listed as a non-default alternative for
    S>   a package in *main*),

Hmm, what I intend to do conforms to the first sentence of the paragraph
(the packages to go into main do not require or recommend a package
outside of *main* for compilation or execution), but not the add-on in
brackets. Is the only solution here then really to have two source packages
with exactly the same upstream source and only a difference in
the way the binaries are built and what they depend upon?
In the end it would be a rather large duplication of work, hence a
rather big nuisance and time-killer.

I'm thankful for opinions/alternatives.

Roland