Hello, On Thu 25 Feb 2021 at 09:02PM GMT, Ian Jackson wrote: > Firstly, everything in that directory is completely DFSG-free in > itself. Right, which is why we're discussing contrib, not non-free. > Secondly, almost all of its contents are input files and scripts which > are actually used by the main build system to process the DFSG-free > input files (svgs, etc.) into the files which are shipped in the > .deb. So an integral part of the source code for the DFSG-free .deb. > > The only thing which is useless without non-free ROMs is the script > resources/browser/convert2chroma.pl [2]. Obviously therefore this > script is not run at build time and is not shipped in the .deb. > > The difficulty you are having here seems to be simply that this one > DFSG-free script, not shipped in any .deb, and not run during the > package build, is not useful as part of a completely-DFSG-free > workflow. > > Are you really telling me that we have to strip out from the *source > package*, fully DFSG-free ancillary files which are shipped for > convenience by upstream in the same source tree ? Merely because they > are not used in Debian and don't ahve fully Free uses ? > > By that rule any script (or maybe even documentation) in any source > package which is there to help work with proprietary data or on > proprietary systems would have to be thrown out (and the corresponding > source package laundered). > > I don't see how this would benefit our users or protect Debian or > anything. And there must surely be many contrary examples of this in > Debian. It is very common for upstreams to provide ancillary stuff in > source packages which we in Debian don't use or ship. [3] They do > this for everyone's convenience and it causes no trouble. Until now :-/. Firstly, it's worth noting that when it comes to the requirements for the archive areas main/contrib/non-free, the distinction between source and binary packages is not relevant. In this case, I had thought that more than just convert2chroma.pl was useless without proprietary ROMs, but I wasn't sure, why is why I wrote to you. On the difference between main and contrib, Policy is worded in terms of whole packages -- "None of the packages in the *main* archive area require software outside of that area to function." It would be disingenuous to claim that as a result of this single perl script, the whole chroma /package/ "requires software outside of main to function". So I think it is fine to accept to main indeed. However, I would like the opinion of a more experienced ftp team member. So I've removed the internal note I'd put on the package in NEW, so that someone else can more readily take a look. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature