On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 06:54:10PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 06:38:44PM +0100, jhcha54008 wrote:
>
> > I wonder if the following solution would be accepted (see the two patches
> > attached) : let the source package ship the two binaries (bootlx and
> > net_aboot.nh). [...]
>
> Hmm, but this is like removing a hack and creating another one in another
> place.
>
> The previous package was a "fake" Arch:all package, so to speak, and now
> we would have a "fake" source package, as it would include binaries.
>
> We don't want binaries inside source packages (and I think ftpmasters
> would surely agree on this).
>
> If alpha is not a release architecture, would it really be a problem
> to remove this from testing before the release of stretch while we keep it in
> unstable?
>
> We could meet the release goal of all packages being buildable
> in our Arch:all autobuilder that way without causing a major headache
> to users of alpha.
>
> Alternatively, there is also the possibility of asking the Release
> Managers for permission to use stretch-ignore here.
"Arch:all autobuilder" is only part of the problem, since alpha won't be
part of stretch there is no option to build this package on *any* machine
running stretch.
Looks like a clear GPL violation to me.
As Steve already suggested, using the gcc-alpha-linux-gnu package might
be an option for building aboot.
I'll open a similar bug against palo.
> Thanks.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
