On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 06:37:48PM +0200, Stefan Schwandter wrote: > Stefan Schwandter wrote: > > I provided a snd-smotif package in addition to the snd-dmotif package, > > because policy wants it like that, although some people agreed that it's > > pointless to do so since openmotif is in debian (non-free). > > Now I received a bug report that snd-smotif should be in non-free > > instead of contrib. My failure, didn't think of that then. > > I now intend to just drop the -smotif package. Do I have to fear a > > serious bug against snd-dmotif because there's not an -smotif version > > anymore? > After having read the policy again, I noticed that it's only a > "should"-directive to provide both dynamically and statically linked > versions of a motif using package - so I suppose I don't have to fear a > serious bug report, right? Nowadays, it is recommended that you compile & link all software built on the motif API against lesstif, which is in Debian proper (not non-free). Only if the software doesn't work with lesstif should it be linked against motif at all. If you do link against motif, then the software belongs in contrib. If you create a dynamically-linked package that depends on the openmotif package, there's no longer any reason for creating a statically-linked package. This would be a good thing that someone who's concerned with such things to introduce as a policy amendment, since we're clearly running out of reasons to special-case Motif in policy. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp02HZutUb5F.pgp
Description: PGP signature