On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:49:14 -0400 (EDT), Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 14:54 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: >> It seems to me that something needs >> to be done to get these packages to autobuild again somehow. What needs to >> be done to make that happen? Whitelist the package? (whatever that means) > > Some non-free packages we can auto-build on Debian hardware; in some > cases, the licence means we can't. The default assumption is (and has > to be) that we can't.
Understood. It's been a few years since I looked at the license for this package, but I don't think it will be a problem for ibm-3270. In Etch, this package was classified as free. It was downgraded to non-free by some legal person on some technical grounds. But I don't think there's anything in the license(s) that would prohibit Debian from compiling or distributing it. I am aware, for example, that some software has historically required those who distribute it to refrain from distributing competing software. I believe that Sun Java has, or used to have, such restrictions. That's why the Debian package for Sun Java downloads code during installation directly from the Sun site. There's no provision like that in the license for ibm-3270. >> Whitelist the package plus re-enabling the disabled functionality (with >> checks for whitelisted packages)? Why is this the wrong approach? > > It's not. But it needs someone to work on fixing the non-free > autobuilding setup to ensure that aren't any windows where it can build > packages which haven't been whitelisted. So the default status has to be blacklisted, and then some legal person has to come along and certify a package as whitelisted. Sounds like work for lawyers. I'm not one of them. >> From what you've told me, that seems to be the way to go. Am I missing >> something? >> >> As for Sid, if there is no dependency on libicu at all, then they do not >> depend on libicu for any architecture, right? And the fact that libicu >> does not exist in Sid is no problem. Again, the packages just have to >> be built. It seems to me that the solution is to find some way to get >> the packages to autobuild again, as was done in the past. It seems to me >> that that will solve all the problems. > > Yep, that would solve all the problems. It's just not as small a "just" > as you appear to be suggesting. :-) I see. OK, well I have a work-around for now (download the source package and build the binaries myself). And I can live with that for now until the autobuild problem gets fixed. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
