Re: Redundant code for non-us?
> Is it possible for anyone distributing the source in any way
> possible under DFSG going to get in trouble for distributing
> the non-free component, that wouldn't be possible with the
> free component?
I'm not sure I parsed all that. I guess the auto-builders and
porters will need to get the source from non-us in order to build
their version of the main package. But perhaps importing even 10
lines of crypto code could be illegal in some countries. So I
suppose that's a problem.
> If so, then policy or not there's a very real practical
> problem with this decision.
>
> And, yeah, you do need to worry about autobuilders.
Would auto-builders have a problem detecting the situation and
dealing with it?
It's actually _easier_ for me to copy the package I have now to
create a second source package than it would be to modify it to
create two binary packages. So I don't mind going to the two
source packge solution if it solves technical problems.
I wrote:
> The next release of powstatd will contain crypto code and will
> produce a crypto pacakge in main/non-us, and a crypto-free
> package in main. I plan to have a _single_ source package in
> non-us for both binary packages (although it's probably initially
> easier to have two source packages, it's more elegant to have a
> single one).
>
> Will there be technical difficulties associated with a main
> binary package having its source in main/non-us? I'm thinking of
> access to the sources for auto-builders and possibly from the
> Debian web page itself.
[My mail server at work has been down since Friday, but I saw
your reply on the list-archive. If you want me to see a reply
quickly, send it to psg@debian.org, otherwise I'll get it when I
get it.]
Thanks,
Peter
Reply to: