> On 9. 1. 2023, at 14:34, Bernhard Schmidt <be...@debian.org> wrote: > > Am 09.01.23 um 14:30 schrieb Ondřej Surý: > > Hi Ondrej, > >>>> Looking at #942501 and #942502, the intention seems to be to not >>>> ship bind9-libs in bookworm. >>> >>> I agree, Ccing Ondrej who has done the heavy lifting on this package. >>> >>> AFAICT there is no binary reverse dependency in unstable, and #942501 >>> "just" needs a NMU for the removed build-dep. >>> >>> Ondrej, what do you think? >> No, not really. The bind9-libs package contains shared libraries for >> bind9, bind9-dnsutils, bind9-host and bind9-utils package. >> We could drop bind9-dev, but that was required by the bind9-dyndb-ldap >> plugin - that's the thing that might be useful to solve, but then again, >> RedHat >> chose GPL for the project, so there's little we can do in both upstream and >> downstream - we certainly don't want to re-licence whole BIND 9 to GPL >> because of the bundled plugin. I would rather keep them separate even >> if it's painful. > > Hum, either I got something totally wrong or we are talking about different > things. > > This thread is about src:bind9-libs, still on the 9.11 code train and building
Sorry, my bad. Then no. We must not ship src:bind9-libs in bookwork. > not about src:bind9, building the bind9-libs binary package (yes, this is > totally confusing, even to Debian tooling) I though that had been already removed: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011538 But I guess something went wrong and perhaps **just** binary bind9-libs was removed instead. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ond...@sury.org
