[Debian-med-packaging] [rt.broad #134078] Packaging IGV for Debian [PATCH]

[Shaun Jackmam]

On 2010-06-18, at 4:47 AM, Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:12:40PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>>> That's actually not precise:  To be distributed via the Debian  
>>> mirror
>>> network the existing source code is a precondition.  Without any  
>>> source
>>> code a package will also not go into non-free.  The decision about
>>> official (main) Debian or non-free depends from the license of this
>>> source code.  If it is DFSG free it can go to main if it does not  
>>> need
>>> any precondition from non-free.  In the later case it has to go into
>>> contrib.
>>
>> Hi Andreas and Shaun,
>>
>> I think that Andreas is confusing the request of having a source  
>> package with a
>> request of providing the sources. For instance the kernel ???binary  
>> blobs??? and
>> the NVIDIA proprietary drivers do not provide sources, but exist in  
>> the
>> non-free section of our archive as source and binary package,  
>> where ???source???
>> only means a package format that is used to build binary packages:  
>> the source
>> package can contain pre-compiled binary objects in the case of our  
>> non-free
>> section.
>
> Charles, you are right in so far that my statement is also not  
> precise.
> On the other hand I think for practical reasons ftpmaster might let  
> some
> BLOBs which are *really* needed by a large number of Debian users in,
> but I guess they will insist on having the source for a "random" Java
> library.
>
> But thanks for clarifying this anyway
>
>       Andreas.

Hi Andreas,

ftpmaster must check that Debian has the legal right to redistribute a  
package. Outside of that, I don't believe their role is to decide  
which packages should or shouldn't be in the non-free archive.

Cheers,
Shaun