[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Semi-contrib packages

Nicolas Boullis wrote:

On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:49:29PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
source package in main?

No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).

Right, thanks for pointing this out (I need to RTFP :-). So the source would become contrib, because some of the binaries would need contrib software to build on one platform. But then, can I put the gcc/g77-built binaries in main? Hmm, doubtful.

Of course you can.
gcc/g77 does not require any non-free software. They require a C
compiler, but any C compiler, including gcc itself (for example a
previous version).  And for the bootsatraping problem on a given
architecture, it's still possible to use a cross-compiler on another

Right, but it seems policy does not allow a contrib source package to put binaries in both contrib and main. It's a policy issue, not a technical one: if a package is "tainted" with a non-free build-dep or dep for a single binary package on a single arch, then the whole thing is thrown into contrib.

And I've decided it's not worth duplicating the source package for faster performance on this one arch, I've put enough work into the package so that it's trivial for a user to build his/her own .debs with the non-free compilers/libs. (Haven't tested gcc-3.0 yet, it's very possible the performance difference bet ccc/cfal and gcc/g77-3.0 will be a lot narrower than vs. gcc/g77-2.95.)

Thanks though,

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! <http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>

Reply to: