Re: main or contrib?
Le Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:25:23AM +0100, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
> > > Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org> wrote:
>
> > Does it mean that the upload of packages which can not be built or used
> > using commands like dpkg, apt, or aptitude, as opposed to make, is
> > discouraged?
>
> I don't quite understand what you mean. Any build process can be wrapped into
> dpkg-buildpackage (although the "upstream" source may need to be repackaged in
> some cases). That is, if you can build the package "manually", you can also
> write a debian/rules file to do it automatically. A Debian package can always
> be used using dpkg, apt and aptitude, otherwise it isn't a Debian package.
Hi all,
First of all, I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to
argue that Al Nikolov should not package eciadsl. It just happens that
his question echoes a similar question I encountered in my New
Maintainer Quest, and that jumped on this occasion to test in real life
wether the answer I made to my AM makes sense.
So the question I am asking is wether a package is acceptable when it is
broken as long as the user did not perform some operations that are not
doable with debian administration tools such as dpkg or apt. This is why
I was also asking if it would make sense to provide a wrapper package, a
bit like the ones for the proprietary nvidia drivers or RealPlayer,
which would retreive the "blob", and create a binary package ad-hoc, on
which the main package would depend.
Of course, if it would consume more time than it would save, this would
be a bit bureaucratic. Also, if capturing the "blob" is illegal, The
creation of such a wrapper should not be encouraged...
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wako, Saitama, Japan
Reply to: