On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:22:40AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: >> there is also the problem that a non-free source package is not allowed to >> produce binary packages for the main archive… Perhaps the best solution for >> the >> moment is to keep the glam2 source and binary packages and have the meme >> binary >> package ship the glam2 programs and conflict against the glam2 package ? > > After I pressed the send key I just had a similar thought: We should > probably not drop some free code in favour of non-free code. I'm also > not convinced that the glam2 code inside meme is free any more (should > be double checked - otherwise we might be able to *extract* this code > from the source tarball of meme and split it into meme-free / > meme-nonfree parts. > > In contrast to Charles suggestion I had the following package scheme in > mind: > > glam2 binary builded from old glam2 source > glam2-nf (glam2-nonfree, whatever name) builded as one binary package > out of others from meme source > > Both binaries need to conflict each other.
As I side-note, I just looked at where the free version of glam2 is obtained. They have removed all of the files, so that version is not even available anymore. Scott -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
