Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
I wonder whether somebody keeps on working for this and what help I
could possibly provide.
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 :
> 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.
> > 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.