Hi Thorsten, I was asking on IRC #debian-ftp how we can deal with the current deadlock and lamby suggested to ping you again. We are just waiting for advise what to do next. If re-uploading as it was is a sensible thing to do please let us know. If not, what exactly do you expect us to do?
Kind regards Andreas. On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:19:44AM +0200, Frederic Bonnard wrote: > Forwarding to the correct debian-java mailing list.. > > --- > > Hi Thorsten, > > thanks for working on that and everybody that answered to help this > topic to progress. I've been off my computer last week. > > > your package seems to consist mostly of jar files without the corresponding > > sources. So I am afraid I have to reject it. > > That's right, there are several jars that are part of the embedded sbt > binary distribution that is used to only build the current sbt. > All started here : > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639910#118 > > There Mehdi Dogguy explained we can bootstrap sbt this way as long as we > do not ship those binary jars in the Debian binary package. It seems > this process has been followed for other softwares. > > That looked ok for me since the spirit of Debian is there : the > different components to upload are DFSG compliant : the sources of sbt > are there (2) and licenses of all files are DFSG compliant (10) (other > DFSG points are ok too; no mention of specific distribution point or > restriction, classical licenses). > > The only thing is that in main the set of components that I've pushed > may Depends on each other for runtime, but a simultaneous push in main > of those should in theory be ok (2.2.1 : None of the packages in the > main archive area require software outside of that area to function.) > > If binary jars for compilation are a problem, what should be done when > for example you have a font file (with DFSG compatible license) that is > used for generating image files at build time and those generated images > will be included in the binary package. Should that source package be > refused because the project didn't include the source of the font file > (which can come from another project) ? (that could be a font file or > any image without the source but with a DFSG license still) > > Sorry to play the devil's advocate and being irritating, I'm not that > kind :), just willing to understand. > So, am I missing some clear and strict policy point or is that a > question of interpretation. > > F. > > > > > Thorsten > > > > > > > > === > > > > Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why > > your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our > > concerns. > > -- http://fam-tille.de