Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Thorsten,
I was asking on IRC #debian-ftp how we can deal with the current
deadlock and lamby suggested to ping you again. We are just waiting
for advise what to do next. If re-uploading as it was is a sensible
thing to do please let us know. If not, what exactly do you expect
us to do?
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:19:44AM +0200, Frederic Bonnard wrote:
> Forwarding to the correct debian-java mailing list..
>
> ---
>
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> thanks for working on that and everybody that answered to help this
> topic to progress. I've been off my computer last week.
>
> > your package seems to consist mostly of jar files without the corresponding
> > sources. So I am afraid I have to reject it.
>
> That's right, there are several jars that are part of the embedded sbt
> binary distribution that is used to only build the current sbt.
> All started here :
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639910#118
>
> There Mehdi Dogguy explained we can bootstrap sbt this way as long as we
> do not ship those binary jars in the Debian binary package. It seems
> this process has been followed for other softwares.
>
> That looked ok for me since the spirit of Debian is there : the
> different components to upload are DFSG compliant : the sources of sbt
> are there (2) and licenses of all files are DFSG compliant (10) (other
> DFSG points are ok too; no mention of specific distribution point or
> restriction, classical licenses).
>
> The only thing is that in main the set of components that I've pushed
> may Depends on each other for runtime, but a simultaneous push in main
> of those should in theory be ok (2.2.1 : None of the packages in the
> main archive area require software outside of that area to function.)
>
> If binary jars for compilation are a problem, what should be done when
> for example you have a font file (with DFSG compatible license) that is
> used for generating image files at build time and those generated images
> will be included in the binary package. Should that source package be
> refused because the project didn't include the source of the font file
> (which can come from another project) ? (that could be a font file or
> any image without the source but with a DFSG license still)
>
> Sorry to play the devil's advocate and being irritating, I'm not that
> kind :), just willing to understand.
> So, am I missing some clear and strict policy point or is that a
> question of interpretation.
>
> F.
>
> >
> > Thorsten
> >
> >
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
> > your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
> > concerns.
> >
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: