Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #10151

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Show key headers only | View raw

Hi,

I wonder whether somebody keeps on working for this and what help I
could possibly provide.

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

Back to linux.debian.maint.java | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Frederic Bonnard <frediz@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-09-05 09:40 +0200
  Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2017-10-04 21:30 +0200
    Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Thorsten Alteholz <debian@alteholz.de> - 2017-10-04 22:50 +0200
      Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2017-10-20 07:20 +0200
  Re: scala-tools-sbinary_0.4.2+2.11.M5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2017-11-15 17:00 +0100
    Re:  =?us-ascii?Q?scala-tools-sbinary=5F0=2E4=2E2+2=2E11=2EM5-1=5Famd?= =?us-ascii?Q?64=2Echanges?= REJECTED Frédéric Bonnard <frediz@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-11-17 12:20 +0100
      Re: =scala-tools-sbinary REJECTED Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2017-12-05 14:40 +0100

csiph-web