Re: opencpn: binaries without source.
On 10/9/18 9:35 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 09/10/18 21:17, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 10/9/18 9:08 PM, Michael Kolmodin wrote:
>>> In the meantime, I have looked into packaging some of the most important
>>> plugins. The issue here is that several of them contains pre-compiled
>>> binaries. The reasons are obvious: these plugins handles various
>>> confidential chart formats.
>>>
>>> On Fedora, I would have to package such plugins outside Fedora,
>>> practically speaking this would mean rpmfusion.
>>>
>>> How are such things handled by Debian?
>>
>> Pre-compiled binaries are not acceptable, if it cannot be built from
>> source it must be excluded from the package.
>
> Yes, they must be separate packages - as a starter, they are separate
> upstreams That said, at a glance it looks possible to add such packages
> to the non-free section. If so, what needs to be considered in such a
> scenario?
If the plugins cannot be built from source, non-free is not really
appropriate either. Despite what the policy footnote says.
If there are plugins that have license issues, that restrict
modifications for example, those cannot be included in main and must go
to non-free. The opencpn package in main cannot Depend on nor Recommend
packages in non-free, if opencpn cannot work without non-free components
its needs to go to contrib, which like non-free is not officially part
of Debian (which implies not built on the buildds, not included in
various QA systems, etc).
For the benefit of its users OpenCPN should have a plugin manager to
distribute its plugins, so that they don't have to be packaged, and
hence don't have to conform to the distribution policies.
Kind Regards,
Bas
Reply to: