Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Andreas Tille wrote:
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?
as long as all sources are available in the upload, I think the "buildable
from source"-requirement can be loosened for bootstrapping the package.
If I remember correctly, the missing sources and the incomplete
debian/copyright have been the only reasons for the rejection (except
somebody else objects now).
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:19:44AM +0200, Frederic Bonnard wrote:
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)
Generally speaking, if you can not build each part of a binary package
from source, this package can not be in main. Somehow you have to create
that font file, afterwards you create the images and put them into the
binary package. This doesn't sound much different from compiled sources!?
Thorsten
Reply to: