Comments regarding pyviennacl_1.0.1-1_amd64.changes

[Toby St Clere Smithe]

Hi Thorsten,

Thorsten Alteholz <alteholz at debian.org> writes:
> 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.

Right.

>> 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.

This is also true.

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

Thanks. I'll follow the advice for the next upload.


Cheers,

-- 
Toby St Clere Smithe
http://tsmithe.net