Re: can a non-buildable part remain in source
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:38:45AM +0000, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Matthew Palmer (mpalmer@debian.org) wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:32:03PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >> I have a package that has an optional part that cannot presently be
> >> built in main but ships a (java bytecode) binary in the tarball.
> >> Policy prevents me from adding this to the binary debs, but my
> >> understanding of policy is that I can keep it in the orig.tar.gz for the
> >> sake of using an unchanged upstream tarball.
> >> Is this correct?
> >
> >It depends on what the licence terms are for the binary. If that licence is
> >DFSG-free, and you are complying with the licence without distributing the
> >source (ie it's not a GPL-like "must give source" licence) then there's no
> >problem. Debian can comply with that licence in it's current form, and can
> >distribute the source package to it's mirrors and users without fear.
>
> Well, the license is GPL and there is source and binary included in the tarball, so
> licensewise this doesn't seem to be a problem, neither with legal distribution under
> the license nor with respect to DFSG. The only problem is that the source cannot be
> recompiled without additional tools (e.g. ant).
>
> >I would urge you to sanitise your tarballs. It's a PITA to do (and note in
> >the documentation), but it's the safest course of action for our users.
>
> Well, if you think that's best, that is what I'll be doing.
No, I misunderstood "cannot presently be built in main" to mean "not
licenced for main". Stuff that isn't built can live in the tarball without
a problem, but yes, you can't put the pre-built binary into the packages.
- Matt
Reply to: