On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 08:28:12PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > > > > > > > 2) Do the binary .debs go in non-US? > > > > Yes. Policy currently requires it. > > OK, I understand that this is a quirk of Debian policy, and not US law. >
It wouldn't make sense for .deb's to go in a place different than their source code. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to rebuild from source without specifying additional places to get source tarballs and diffs from. > > > What about the Debian source files? > > > > Same. > > I guess this makes sense, since there would need to be a Build-Depends on > libssl-dev. (Am I right about that?) Yes. > > > > If I > > > make additional non-ssl .debs from the same source, would they be in > > > non-US or not? > > > > Yes, but only if the source actually contains crypto. Source or binary, > > policy currently requires export restricted software to be uploaded to > > non-us. > > Well, I don't intend to redistribute libssl, in my source or binary .debs, > just dynamically link to them at compile and then run time. So do the non-ssl > .debs go in the non-US/main or main? > There are legitimate reasons why non-crypto .deb's might need to go in non-US/main. For example if the source and diffs must go in non-us, you can't put the .deb's built from them anywhere else. In this case, it's probably silly to even bother distributing them since anyone who was using non-US could just use the ssl versions. > > Good luck :) > > Thank you! I may also download the source of some package that comes in ssl > and non-ssl flavors and see how they do it. Can you suggest one? I'm thinking > of lynx, myself. > lynx has seperate and distinct sources for the crypto and non-crypto versions. Based on size alone, I suspect the non-ssl version has all the crypto stuff ripped out (or the ssl version has it patched in). -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
