Hi, On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:27:07PM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote: > > there seems to be something wrong with this package. > > A DFSG package should not be in non-free. > > > > This is the package that you rejected last November because of the > non-free file dbmalloc.h [1]. The package has the +dfsg suffix because I > excluded the postscript Manual.ps which cannot be built from source. > It's my understanding that even non-free packages should meet the dfsg > as far as possible.
Sounds sensible. > Would you prefer I put the Manual.ps back in so that there is no > repacked tarball? Otherwise, do you have a more appropriate alternative > to +dfsg for the repack suffix? I do not think that the tarball name in itself should be a rejection reason. I also use this suffix for repackaged tarballs. Some people are using +ds but I'd consider this nitpicking. BTW, did you possibly contact the copyright holders for choosing a free license? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de