Package: conky
Severity: serious

   Hi!

* Vincent Cheng <vincentc1...@gmail.com> [2011-08-30 02:41:35 CEST]:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Gerfried Fuchs <rho...@deb.at> wrote:
> >  I'm not sure if you actually received the reject mail through some
> > means, but in case you haven't, here it is:
> >
> > Reject message:
> >   Since the build-depends on nvidia-settings got re-introduced and
> >  that was the reason why the package was in contrib, not in main,
> >  this upload is going to get rejected.
> >
> >  Please be a bit more careful here, thanks.
> > Rhonda
> 
> The build-depends on nvidia-settings was always there in the first
> place; currently, conky in testing/unstable still has libxnvctrl-dev |
> nvidia-settings (both in contrib) as build dependencies, even though
> conky (the source package) was moved back to main since version
> 1.8.1-1. This has already been discussed extensively in #579102;
> please see [1] in particular.

 [1] is clearly wrong then, citing the policy:

,---------------------------> quote policy <---------------------------
| 2.2.1. The main archive area 
| ----------------------------
| 
|      Every package in _main_ must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free 
|      Software Guidelines).
| 
|      In addition, the packages in _main_
|         * must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or
|           execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
|           "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-_main_
|           package),
|         * must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and
|         * must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual.
`---------------------------> quote policy <---------------------------

 Please read the first list point, emphasis on *compilation*.
 
> As Conky's maintainer, I understand why people might raise objections
> to this, but there simply is no easy and straight-forward way to fix
> this

 Then the package has to stay in contrib, as tough as this might sound.

> The ftpmasters have simply accepted the status quo as a compromise.

 Where did that happen? Do you have a hint for that?

> In light of all this, would you be willing to re-consider accepting
> conky as-is to Debian backports?

 In the light of all this, I'm filing a RC bug against the package for
violating policy 2.2.1.

 Sorry,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los      |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los    | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los    |



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Reply via email to