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 <lawrence_cecil_williams@hotmail.com> [2004-08-2623:26:25 -0230]:It is pointless to leave them open, since neither package can ever be released.Am I missing something here...couldn't these packages be in contrib if they themselves are free, even if their dependencies aren't?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 python2.3-lame.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?
Later!