On 00-03-19 Brian Kimball wrote: > Christian Kurz wrote: > > You mean qmail and ucspi-tcp? No, this is then no bug as the source are > > available and debian-user can build binary-packages for themself. Debian > > can't distributed binary package for this software as the license does > > not allow this. So I will close this bug.
> Then could you at least mention this fact in the package description? I
Why? Have you raed the first line of the description? There clearly
stands: Virtual POP-domains and users for qmail
-=-=-
After using apt-cache search qmail you wll notice that there's package
qmail-src and it's descriptions states clearly:
| Dan Bernstein (qmail's author) only gives permission for qmail to be
| distributed in source form, or binary for by approval. This package
| has been put together to allow people to easily build a qmail binary
| package for themselves, from source.
| .
| If there is a package called qmail available, then Dan has approved the
| binary version of the package for approval, so you might as well install
| that and save yourself some effort.
So I see absolutely no nead for adding unnessecary statements as the
description is clear.
> think something like "This package intentionally depends on two packages
> not found in the Debian distribution because they are so non-free that
> only their sources can be distributed, not their binaries. In order to
> meet these dependencies, please install the qmail-src and ucspi-tcp-src
> packages, which will enable you to build the qmail and ucspi-tcp
> packages." would be very useful. And it might prevent well-intentioned
No, this is same as in the description of qmail. Just because some
people are to lazy to search a bit around (1-2minutes), we should add
nearly the same information to every package? You must be jocking.
Ciao
Christian
--
Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Committee Member
1024/26CC785¾ 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
pgpPN8wQ1PEPL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
