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

[Karol M. Langner]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 04:53:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > 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?
> 
> Yes, that would be best.  You don't necessarily have to do it upstream,
> we could just strip the data files out off the "real" package and create
> a new source package with those.  But for Debian's purposes, two source
> packages would be required.

OK, I think I'm done.

Here is the cclib source package:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cclib/
which creates cclib and python-cclib and doesn't contain any of
the offending files. Note that the package cclib contains just two scripts,
but I guess that's OK because in the future it should get more content.

Here is the cclib-data source package:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cclib-data/
which is meant for non-free and has the remaining data and test scripts.

Does this look OK?

Cheers,
Karol

-- 
written by Karol Langner
Mon Jul 18 08:51:41 CEST 2011