> Is it possible for anyone distributing the source in any way > possible under DFSG going to get in trouble for distributing > the non-free component, that wouldn't be possible with the > free component?
I'm not sure I parsed all that. I guess the auto-builders and porters will need to get the source from non-us in order to build their version of the main package. But perhaps importing even 10 lines of crypto code could be illegal in some countries. So I suppose that's a problem. > If so, then policy or not there's a very real practical > problem with this decision. > > And, yeah, you do need to worry about autobuilders. Would auto-builders have a problem detecting the situation and dealing with it? It's actually _easier_ for me to copy the package I have now to create a second source package than it would be to modify it to create two binary packages. So I don't mind going to the two source packge solution if it solves technical problems. I wrote: > The next release of powstatd will contain crypto code and will > produce a crypto pacakge in main/non-us, and a crypto-free > package in main. I plan to have a _single_ source package in > non-us for both binary packages (although it's probably initially > easier to have two source packages, it's more elegant to have a > single one). > > Will there be technical difficulties associated with a main > binary package having its source in main/non-us? I'm thinking of > access to the sources for auto-builders and possibly from the > Debian web page itself. [My mail server at work has been down since Friday, but I saw your reply on the list-archive. If you want me to see a reply quickly, send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], otherwise I'll get it when I get it.] Thanks, Peter
