Re: non-free Packages as build-dependency of contrib / non-free ones & autobuilding

2010-04-21 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Andreas Barth writes: > Hi, > > currently our policy says that main packages must only (build-)depend > on main packages, but contrib and non-free packages could use packages > from contrib and non-free. > > In practice build-dependencies from non-free are not used by

Re: non-free Packages as build-dependency of contrib / non-free ones & autobuilding

2010-04-02 Thread Charles Plessy
Hi Andreas and everybody, I think that it would be acceptable to ask the maintainers of packages for which auto-building is not allowed their opinion about dropping support for them. This would solve the problem entirely, and aren't these packages rare cornercases? I could not think of examples wh

non-free Packages as build-dependency of contrib / non-free ones & autobuilding

2010-04-02 Thread Andreas Barth
Hi, currently our policy says that main packages must only (build-)depend on main packages, but contrib and non-free packages could use packages from contrib and non-free. In practice build-dependencies from non-free are not used by the buildds for two reasons: 1. (mostly historical) we need to

Re: Source packages in main building contrib binary packages.

2008-08-06 Thread Ben Finney
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think that if we were shipping a package whose description says > "Install this and you will have your 3D working" and which would > automatically download non-free software, we would indeed cheat our > users. > > On the other hand, if a package is d

Source packages in main building contrib binary packages.

2008-08-06 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 07:37:47PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > I think it would be very surprising to have installation of a package from > the main distribution area result in downloading non-free software from > elsewhere, which is a common case for contrib packages. Le Thu,

Re: contrib

2004-03-16 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:59:09AM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > * the GR doesn't specify that, but we take out contrib so we don't > have dangling dependencies contrib already has dangling dependencies, even with non-free. > * contrib gets in incorporated into

Re: contrib

2004-03-15 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:59:09AM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > >>>>> "AS" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Me> So, am I correct in saying that the fate of the "contrib" > Me> section is unspecified in t

Re: contrib

2004-03-15 Thread Evan Prodromou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >>>>> "AS" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Me> So, am I correct in saying that the fate of the "contrib" Me> section is unspecified in the current GR? AS> Yes, except t

Re: contrib

2004-03-15 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 07:28:22PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > So, am I correct in saying that the fate of the "contrib" section is > unspecified in the current GR? Yes, except that the constraint requiring it to exist is removed. The fate of contrib is a policy matter, since

contrib

2004-03-14 Thread Evan Prodromou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So, am I correct in saying that the fate of the "contrib" section is unspecified in the current GR? ~ESP - -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4