On 2021-05-21 at 05:40, Hunter Wittenborn wrote: > <mailto:mechtilde@debian.org> > >> If yes, then try to build it from its source. Then it can be >> published in main > > > <mailto:debian@polynamaude.com> > >> Why are you putting the package in non-free ? > >> What license did you put your software under ? > > makedeb is licensed under the GPL3 license. > > The goal was to be able to just distribute the binary form of the > packages, as that's all that I get/use when I build it myself (the > helper application, makepkg, handles all the source files, and the > rest is just built into a binary package with makedeb itself). So... are you trying to get makedeb into Debian, or just the packages which makedeb creates? If you want to get makedeb into Debian, then you'll need to build a Debian source package for it. Since the source is GPLv3, there's no obvious reason why it would need to go into non-free; if (as I suspect is likely) the package formats it is capable of taking as input are created by and are available containing software which is itself DFSG-compliant, there's probably also no reason why it would need to go into contrib. At that point, it would fit into main. If on the other hand you want to get the packages created by makedeb into Debian, you're probably out of luck. In order to get into Debian, a package must start out in the form which is called a Debian source package; that's the form that includes a .dsc, et cetera. From there, it must be compiled into a .deb on the build-daemon (buildd) servers, by the usual Debian package-build mechanisms which take source packages as their input. > <mailto:debian@polynamaude.com> > >> There's rule regarding GPL software and packaging that must be >> followed... > > I was looking at the following in the Debian Policy, which was > leading me to believe it would be fine: > > "The non-free archive area contains supplemental packages intended to > work with the Debian distribution that do not comply with the DFSG or > have other problems that make their distribution problematic." > > In this case the problems would be lack of a source package. Is there > someplace else that says GPL programs have to be distributed under > source packages? That would be the fact that the people who manage the Debian archive, and I think nowadays the tooling they use to do so, will not accept anything other than a source package as input for going into that archive. If you want a reference link for it, [1] was the first thing I found; it explains the reasons behind requiring a source package well enough, and does also state that one is required for entry into the Debian archive, although it doesn't explain why for that latter. I don't find a reference link for that latter myself just offhand, but it's been discussed in these mailing lists often enough. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Packaging/SourcePackage#Why_bother_with_source_package_if_there_is_a_binary_package_.3F -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature