Re: ITP enhydra

2000-09-05 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Monday 4 September 2000, at 2 h 22, the keyboard of Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian source package, as it is architecture-independent? Or must it compile from the Java source? If the package is in

Re: ITP enhydra

2000-09-05 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Monday 4 September 2000, at 2 h 22, the keyboard of Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian source package, as it is architecture-independent? Or must it compile from the Java source? If the package is in

Re: ITP enhydra

2000-09-05 Thread Matt Zimmerman
[CCed to: debian-java, where this thread originated the wnpp bug for Enhydra debian-devel, to get broader input on source packaging issues Please trim CC list as appropriate] On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:55:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: If the package is in

Re: ITP enhydra

2000-09-05 Thread David Starner
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:22:41PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:55:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the sources. IMHO (but IANAL), for a package to get in 'main', you HAVE TO be able to compile it from

Re: ITP enhydra

2000-09-05 Thread John Leuner
it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian source package, as it is architecture-independent? Or must it compile from the Java source? If the package is in 'non-free', you don't even need the sources. IMHO (but IANAL), for a package to get in 'main',