Re: please let ugene be autobuilt
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 03:03:37PM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > I admit *personally* I lost my motivation to ask for whitelisting. If I
> > tried last time (several years ago - so this might have changed) it was
> > a longish process and I decided not to spent time in non-free software
>
> that's unfortunately a common situation in too many parts of debian :(
I would agree but strictly speaking non-free isn't a part of Debian. ;-)
> > but rather spent this time in the process of freeing this software. As
> > far as I see the chances for Ugene might be not that bad but the package
> > itself needs more work to replace code copies of just packaged software.
>
> yeah, that's just plain cool, yes!
> But it's something I can't afford to do, so I approach smaller tasks.
Before you try you can never know whether writing a mail to upstream
takes longer / is less successful than writing to nonfree@r.d.o. :-P
> > BTW, I'm not convinced that the less powerful architectures will be
> > happy about building ugene ...
>
> if mips can build libreoffice and openjdk-9! :P
OK, one point for you.
> Anyway, given that you confirmed my fears about nonfree@r.d.o, I'm
> building it here and I'm going to do a binary-only upload of it once
> done.
> This package is blocking the procps transition to complete, that is.
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-procps.html :)
Ahh, OK, that's a fair reason. Thanks for your effort.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: