Re: How to remove ITP from debian.org?
Wesley J Landaker wrote:
I'll consider the solutions and look into seeing if it's possible to
strip LAME dependencies from it. Or at least point the user to a place
where they can get the lame package. I know one popular apt source that
has it ( marillat.. his is the one i built python2.3-lame against
apparently lol ).
On Thursday 26 August 2004 22:11, Lawrence Williams wrote:
John Buttery wrote:
* Lawrence Williams <email@example.com> [2004-08-26
It is pointless to leave them open, since neither package can ever
Am I missing something here...couldn't these packages be in
contrib if they themselves are free, even if their dependencies
python2.3-lame Depends on LAME being available ( due to patent
issues, it isn't in Debian ). And LSongs is shot, since it depends on
I think what John was saying is that both python2.3-lame and LSongs,
assuming they both are free on their own, could go probably go in
contrib. Users could then install those packages, but would have to get
lame from somewhere else (i.e. non-free, some other repository, etc).
OTOH, if getting LSongs in main was important to you (or somebody) it
might make sense to strip lame support out of LSongs, and either have
the features that use it disabled (probably used for ripping CD's?) or
simple replace that support with support for encoding to a patent-free
format like Ogg/Vorbis.
Hmmm I don't worry if they're not in main. Perhaps both lsongs and
python2.3-lame would be okay in contrib?