Comments regarding pyviennacl_1.0.1-1_amd64.changes

[Thorsten Alteholz]

Hi Toby,

On Mon, 5 May 2014, Toby St Clere Smithe wrote:
> I know you have the final say here, but the same document[1], under
> seciont 6.7.8.2 point 3 makes the converse point that the orig tarball
> "should, except where impossible for legal reasons, preserve the entire
> building and portablility infrastructure provided by the upstream
> author. For example, it is not a sufficient reason for omitting a file
> that it is used only when building on MS-DOS."

yes, this is true for stuff that is not already in the archive (like the 
MS-DOS build system). As you pointed out there is already an option to 
ignore the embedded copy of boost. So the "building infrastructure" is not 
harmed by removing boost.

> The rationale given is that it "is common for Debian users who need to
> build software for non-Debian platforms to fetch the source from a
> Debian mirror rather than trying to locate a canonical upstream
> distribution point", which I agree with!

But those users could also fetch the boost library from the Debian mirror.

Anyway, the suggestion from Anton is fine and I marked the package for 
accept.

   Thorsten