-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:09:12PM +0200, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> On 12/10/16 21:41, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> >> I don't think that shipping a binary compiled upstream should be
> >> allowed, so where's the line drawn?
Technically it would be allowed, but because it is pretty much impossible to
prove that the binary was indeed compiled with a compiler in Debian and from
the provided source, it is probably rejected unless the packager has a good
reason for doing it this way.
By the way, that isn't impossible: xburst-tools contains a boot loader for a
mips device, which is included as binary in the package. On everything except
mips a cross compiler would be required to build it. Those haven't been in
Debian for a long time (but I think they are now), so shipping a binary that
could only be rebuilt on mips is acceptable in such a case. But note that the
compiler _is_ in Debian; it may just not be usable on every arch.
> > Dunno. It would be great if the line wasn't challenged just to prove a
> > point and eject a lot of packages from main while DFSG#2 is correctly
> > met.
> It is really not in my plans to challenge that line. It is just that I
> would like to understand the rules properly.
It's not about DFSG#2. Packages in contrib _do_ meet the entire DFSG, but
require or recommend a non-free component for some major functionality. We
require packages to be buildable from source, so if they require packages
outside of main for that, they cannot be in main themselves.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----