[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:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 04:40:59PM +0200, Karol M. Langner wrote:
> > I'd like to get back to the issue of cclib...
> 
> Yeah, sorry for letting it drop...

It's more my fault for not being persistent.
  
> > > > 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.

That is what I did now. So, to be clear, I do need strip the original source code
tarball of all the offending files?

Thanks,
Karol

-- 
written by Karol Langner
Sun Jul 17 23:42:30 CEST 2011