Re: question about meme
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:22:40AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> there is also the problem that a non-free source package is not allowed to
>> produce binary packages for the main archive… Perhaps the best solution for the
>> moment is to keep the glam2 source and binary packages and have the meme binary
>> package ship the glam2 programs and conflict against the glam2 package ?
>
> After I pressed the send key I just had a similar thought: We should
> probably not drop some free code in favour of non-free code. I'm also
> not convinced that the glam2 code inside meme is free any more (should
> be double checked - otherwise we might be able to *extract* this code
> from the source tarball of meme and split it into meme-free /
> meme-nonfree parts.
>
> In contrast to Charles suggestion I had the following package scheme in
> mind:
>
> glam2 binary builded from old glam2 source
> glam2-nf (glam2-nonfree, whatever name) builded as one binary package
> out of others from meme source
>
> Both binaries need to conflict each other.
As I side-note, I just looked at where the free version of glam2 is obtained. They have removed all of the files, so that version is not even available anymore.
Scott
Reply to: