>>>>> "S" == Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de> writes:
Hi Sven and Adam, many thanks for your quick answers. S> On 2020-09-30 19:31 +0200, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote: >> Hi, >> >> a quick question to the list, since I didn't find an answer after >> a significant time of searching: >> >> Is it allowed to have a source package with a build dependency on >> a pkg in non-free (in this particular case nvidia-cuda-toolkit) >> and resulting binary packages to go partly to main and others to >> contrib? S> No, see Policy ยง2.2.1: S> In addition, the packages in *main* S> S> * must not require or recommend a package outside of *main* for S> compilation or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Pre- S> Depends", "Depends", "Recommends", "Build-Depends", "Build-Depends- S> Indep", or "Build-Depends-Arch" relationship on a non-*main* package S> unless that package is only listed as a non-default alternative for S> a package in *main*), Hmm, what I intend to do conforms to the first sentence of the paragraph (the packages to go into main do not require or recommend a package outside of *main* for compilation or execution), but not the add-on in brackets. Is the only solution here then really to have two source packages with exactly the same upstream source and only a difference in the way the binaries are built and what they depend upon? In the end it would be a rather large duplication of work, hence a rather big nuisance and time-killer. I'm thankful for opinions/alternatives. Roland