On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> wrote:
> >>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <o...@debian.org> writes: > I do think there are things we could do in this space. > We could set policy consistent with the DFSG on what the definition of > source code in Debian is. > Could the TC offer guidance, or issue a statement, on if (and if so when) it should ever be permissible to allow a waiver from RC-bug status for software whose source code is available but determined to be insufficiently free for the DFSG while active efforts are underway to get the source code into a state determined to be fully compliant with the DFSG? That's what Mr. Praveen is actually asking for, after all. (IMO, of course.) He wants the software he is interested in in the Debian main archive at the time Debian Stretch is released (because, politically and ... I can't think of the right word, but in terms of advertising capabilities, it's undesirable for the software to have to be relegated to the contrib and non-free archives, those don't count for many as being part of "Debian"). But, in practical terms, while the source code for the software may effectively be available within Debian now, it does not meet the full and pristine interpretation of the DFSG in terms of what it means to have source code available. So, while he works on that (by packaging grunt), he's seeking a waiver from RC-bug status for this issue for the in-preparation release. Mmmm. I believe I saw ... Found it. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/07/msg00253.html . Quoting from that message (first paragraph from Mr. Praveen, remainder by Philip Hands <p...@hands.com>): ===== > And why is the people who are so strict about packaging the build tool > not stepping up to package it? FRP for node-grunt was filed in 21 May > 2012 and it is still not complete. So removing these packages until > grunt is packaged makes debian better? They should be in contrib. Allowing them in main removes any incentive to do the work to fix this problem, which I'd imagine is the reason it's not been done. When this was last raised, I looked into it and concluded that grunt is a tangled mess. [...] Simply letting them [ed: packages ultimately depending on the presence of grunt] into main removes that pressure [ed: to deal with the tangled mess of grunt either directly or else indirectly by finessing / replacing it, and/or by getting upstreams to alter their use of grunt, etc], it also means that we're deceiving our users, since they expect buildable source for all packages in main. ===== That's a political decision, too. (I'm not claiming or implying it's a wrong decision, mind you! I'm simply noting it as an observation, I was impressed by it the first time I read it.) Thanks for your time. Hope this is of some use, interest. Joseph
