Re: Redundant code for non-us?
[Sorry for cross-posting, but someone in -policy might object to
me planning to doing the following in the first place.]
The next release of powstatd will contain crypto code and will
produce a crypto pacakge in main/non-us, and a crypto-free
package in main. I plan to have a _single_ source package in
non-us for both binary packages (although it's probably initially
easier to have two source packages, it's more elegant to have a
Will there be technical difficulties associated with a main
binary package having its source in main/non-us? I'm thinking of
access to the sources for auto-builders and possibly from the
Debian web page itself.
Two to three weeks ago, I wrote:
> Thanks, if no one ojects it'll likely be one source in
> non-us/main for powstatd.
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > The package in question was curl.
> > Root of this discussion:
> > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-mentors-9908/msg00059.html
> > the messages supporting my opinion:
> > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-mentors-9908/msg00074.html
> > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-mentors-9908/msg00076.html
> > which I have also expressed here:
> > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-mentors-9908/msg00095.html
> > but there was no more discussion after that, so perhaps it's
> > a bit preposterous to call it a result or a consensus.
> > I'd rather not to dig the decision(?) referred in my post,
> > but the problem seems to be a general one. I think this should
> > be clarified somewhere. For that reason I also Cc: -policy.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org