Hi,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:46:51AM +0200, Emmanuel Promayon wrote:
> >1. Remove tetgen fom the upstream tarball (may be also cut the
> >plugin in question as well if it does not make any sense without
> >tetgen). 2. Build a camitk package targeting at main from this source
> >tarball.
>
> Would it not be possible/preferable/easier to convince the release team
> to remove the non-free code as a debian package patch?
Definitely not. The release team has the only task to accept or remove
packges created by somebody else (read: maintainer or creator of a
non-maintainer upload). The release team will not change anything
inside a package.
Moreover: The problem is in the source of the package and thus you can
not fix it by a patch. If you prefer it is also possile to create a
source tarball
camitk_3.0.2+dfsg1.orig.tar.gz
which can be created by removing those non-free bits from upstream
camitk-3.0.2.tar.gz. We would usually do this if no upstream author is
involved and it is perfectly OK as well. In this case you should
document the removal in debian/README.source and write a target
get-orig-source for debian/rules. I'd regard it less effort to simply
do it inside the upstream source that's why my suggestion.
> If not, as at the moment the upstream changelog is not very visible,
> should I add a specific news on the web page to explain what happened
> between camitk-3.0.2.1.tar.gz and camitk-3.0.2.tar.gz?
That's OK as well. Just some documentation that no new code is in this
"new" version is sufficient (I havn't checked the surce when writing my
advise).
> >To gain full functionality we could gain (for Wheezy+1) optionally
> >with
> >
> >3. Create another source tarball camitk-plugins (or
> >camitk-plugins-non-dfsg or whatever name). 4. Build an according
> >Debian package from this plugins tarball linking with Debian packaged
> >tetgen targeting at contrib and recommending camitk from main 5. You
> >can Suggests camitk-plugins in the camitk package (but not
> >Recommends, which is only allowed inside main)
>
> That sounds like the perfect idea.
Nice that you like it.
> >For the time line: I think doing step 1.+2. from above until end of
> >October is fine. Everything else has time because it does not affect
> >the current release. Is this doable for you?
> Yes, I think there is no problem to do that between now and the end
> of the month.
Fine. Just keep on asking if something remains unclear or you might
need any other help.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
