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

[Karol M. Langner]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 03:58:36PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:55:22PM +0200, Karol M. Langner wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > Did you see my previous email and the new packages? Do you have the time to upload them,
> > or should I ask someone else?
> 
> I just reached Debconf in Banja Luka and should have plenty of time over
> the next days to review and upload.
> 
> Sorry for the late reply, I was mostly offline the last two days.

OK, sorry for pressuring you :)

-- 
written by Karol M. Langner
Sun Jul 24 22:36:32 CEST 2011