Quoting Preuße, Hilmar (2026-02-15 23:37:17) > Am 15.02.2026 um 23:32 schrieb Colin Watson: > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 11:17:43PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Hello, > > >> I recently uploaded src:icc-profiles, it builds fine locally using > >> cowbuilder, but it is not built by Debian autobuilders. Can anyone help > >> figure out why? > > > > It's in non-free without an XS-Autobuild header, so presumably also > > hasn't been allowlisted. See: > > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ > > pkgs.en.html#marking-non-free-packages-as-auto-buildable > > > > Maybe the question is not fully understood. The page says: > > "Check whether it is legally allowed..." > > What is the criteria here? Why could be not be allowed to build a > package, which is technically buildable?
Thanks for the helpful clues - also to Peter and Philipp. I was unaware of that XS-Autobuild header (which of course is totally embarrassing: I am expected to know Policy and DevRef by heart and by asking the question I revealed publicly that I don't). As I recall, I have only been directly involved with maintaining non-free packages in Debian twice - once[^1] for a package that was (and still is) freely licensed but considered too challenging to manage security for due to its preferred form for modification being object-based, not textual, and this time a set of data files[^2] where I engaged mainly to correct an error of some of those in fact being freely licensed. Regarding your question, Hilmar (if I understand it correctly): I never asked, and am puzzled how I managed to get the package accepted in the past. Perhaps I simply uploaded the package with binaries included back then - I don't recall when I shifted to my current practice of my local build system generating both source-only and binaries-included .changes files and then picking whichever feeling more appropriate after the build. Follow-up question: For a package targeted non-free where the "build" involves only copying files around - no involvement of any compiler - is it more appropriate to have it autobuilt or not? Getting it autobuilt means that I will need to bother some authortitative persons with double-checking and setting some system-side flag, in addition to the package-side flag I need to set as well. It feels to me that autobuilding is better to do in most possible cases, even when there is technically no difference, as the aim is to reduce exceptions of that, but maybe I am missing some things here (especially alerted by the "in so many ways" criticism by Philipp). - Jonas [^1]: https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-sugar-team/etoys/-/blob/master/debian/README.non-free [^2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_profile -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
