Re: Redundant code for non-us?
arto.astala@nokia.com wrote:
> iirc this exact situation was discussed rather recently with
> some other package, and the result was that there is one /main
> source archive. The division to '/us' and /non-us is not
> important, especially now when apt can hide it from the user.
>
> This would imply one source in /non-us and two binaries.
>
> Can't remember exact time or the package in question, however.
> Still it might be useful to browse through archive to see
> if anything turns up.
I'm trying to find this discussion and not succeeding. Was it on
-mentors?
I grepped for non-us in recent archives of -devel, -legal and
-mentors and didn't see anything like that.
Thanks for any additional pointers (anything you can remember).
Peter
> Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> Fri Nov 12, 1999 8:03 PM
> > The latest upstream version of powstatd comes in two favours,
> > regular and one that use 128-bit TEA encryption for communication
> > between master and slave.
> >
> > Currently, the upstream author is producing two source archives
> > (but we are discussing this). The only difference is that one
> > doesn't include xtea.c and the other one does. I planned to have
> > my regular `powstatd' package supplemented by a new
> > `powstatd-crypt' package.
> >
> > Do I have to make two source packages?
> >
> > Or can I upload everything to non-us and produce two binary
> > packages (one for regular main and the other for non-us/main)?
> > I have the feeling this is not allowed because it makes the
> > source hard to find. Right?
> >
> > The irony is that xtea.c is freely available outside the US, does
> > not originate from the US, and has only _32_ lines of code!
Reply to: