Tanguy Ortolo <tanguy+deb...@ortolo.eu> writes:
> Le vendredi 13 août 2010, Goswin von Brederlow a écritâ¯:
>> The case of non-recompilable binaries just doesn't fall into this
>> category. The non-recompilable binary will never be DFSG free and has to
>> go to non-free, not contrib, imho.
>
> Again, I think they can be DFSG-free, as the DFSG never mention the need
> for a free compilation chain. And this if it was not the case, according
> to the Policy §2.2.2:
The source must be modifiable and for that to have any meaning the
modified source must be compilable into a modified binary. If the DFSG
isn't specific enough on that and common sense doesn't tell you that
then maybe you could propose some wording for it.
>>> very package in contrib must comply with the DFSG.
> then all the software that requires stuff outside of main for building
> should be moved to non-free, according to the Policy §2.2.3:
Requiring stuff outside of main for building is not the same as
non-recompilable. The source is compilable (and is compiled during
build) if you install the Build-Depends from outside of main. It just
isn't compilable inside of main. I do see a difference there.
>>> Packages must be placed in non-free if they are not compliant with
>>> the DFSG
> non-free is the only section that allows non-free software.
>
> In fact, if requirering non-free software for compilation or exectution
> makes something fail at the DFSG, then I do not see the point of the
> contrib section, as defined by the Policy §2.2.2:
>>> Examples of packages which would be included in contrib are: free
>>> packages which require contrib, non-free packages or packages which
>>> are not in our archive at all for compilation or executionâ¦
>
> --
> Tanguy Ortolo
Again, the difference between compilable with stuff outside of main and
non-recompilable at all. Policy 2.2.2 allows contrib to Build-Depend on
packages outside of main. It doesn't excempt them from the DFSG, which
imho indirectly means compilable source.
How does a source fullfill the DFSG if you can modify it but then can
not compile it to get a modified binary? Who is to say the files
claiming to be the source for some non-recompilable binary even is the
source for that binary. Lets make the blanked claim that the source
provided is not the source of the binary. Now prove me wrong.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87iq3etplg....@frosties.localdomain
