On 3 May 1999, James Troup wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If the protocol is published the lack of a free server AT THE MOMENT
> > should not penalize the software.
>
> Blah. If a program, foobar, is linked against the non-free libevil,
> it goes in contrib. The fact that someone is planning, writing or
> even thinking about writing a libgood DFSG replacement for libevil,
> does *not* mean we put foobar in the main. In the same way the fact
> that there is _currently_ no free server is all that matters.
I think there are subtle differences between dynamic linking and the
server/client model.
Following this example, AFAIK, it would be the "Depends: libevil" control
field what would make us to put foobar in contrib (and nothing else).
In this case:
May the server run on another machine?
Is there an unsatisfied "strong" dependency (Depends or Recommends) if
the client is installed but not the server?
Policy says:
Examples of packages which would be included in "contrib" are
* free packages which require "contrib", "non-free", or "non-US"
packages or packages which are not in our archive at all for
compilation or execution,
If the meaning of the word "require" above is different than the one that
makes a package to actually Depends: or Recommends: another one, maybe
policy should be clarified first.
Thanks.
--
"166c198dcac374cc0673fb8b7e15eab7" (a truly random sig)
