[Debichem-devel] cclib_1.0.1-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Karol M. Langner karol.langner at gmail.com
Sun Jul 17 14:40:59 UTC 2011


I'd like to get back to the issue of cclib...

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:55:50AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 09:13:56PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 21.04.2011, 10:11 +0200 schrieb Karol M. Langner:
> > > What else can be done? In the worst
> > > case scenario, should I remove all tests from the package?
> > 
> > Indeed. 
> Well, the question is whether just the ADF files are offending, or
> whether ftp-master stopped looking there and after we've removed those,
> complains about the next set.

Almost all of the test files are offending.

> > One alternative might be: Put these files into a separate source
> > and binary package into non-free. Then let cclib build-depend on this
> > package. Unfortunately a package in main must not (build-)depend on any
> > package outside main (or unpackaged software). So you would have to put
> > cclib in contrib. 
> I don't think that would be very helpful. AIUI, those files are not
> strictly needed for building the package, just for validation?
> In that case, suggesting the data package in non-free would be fine.
> > IMO changing the EULA or removing these files is the best thing we can
> > do.
> As long as this is just about ADF, just removing those would be a good
> compromise I think.

That is right -- these files are not needed for building, just validation.

If I want to make a data package and put it in non-free, does that mean
I need to have two different source packages?


written by Karol Langner
Sun Jul 17 16:38:14 CEST 2011

More information about the Debichem-devel mailing list