retitle 393422 Contains non-free files. tag 393422 - etch-ignore clone 393422 -1 clone 393422 -2 clone 393422 -3 reassign -1 iceweasel reassign -2 icedove reassign -3 mozilla thanks
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 07:01:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike, > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 06:28:01PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > Does your question apply to *all* of the files mentioned in the mail you > > > linked to? I don't understand which files you believe are non-free and > > > why; > > > some of the files mentioned are things like Microsoft Office documents, > > > which are fine for main. Others are sourceless executables for other > > > platforms, which are not (and are also not etch-ignore). I'm not sure > > > which > > > of the remainder are questionable for Debian, so it's hard to comment > > > further. > > > The mail I quoted is a starting point. Note that it not only applies > > to xulrunner, but also applies to mozilla (which will be replaced by > > iceape), icedove, and firefox (which will be replaced by iceweasel). > > > I guess most of the Word files are fine, though clarification about the > > licensing of the document would be better (who knows, some > > documentations could have non-free licenses, like the IETF documents > > have). The OJI files, on the other hand, from what I can see, do lack > > source and are thus non-free. > > What is an OJI file? What would be proper source for an OJI file? The files in plugin/oji. Sorry if that was not clear enough. Only the files for the Open JVM Interface (OJI) on MacOSX are problematic, apparently. > > The thing is that investigation is required on this issue. The other > > thing is that AFAIK, the files involved in building our packages are > > free. Which means that (AFAIK, again) only source tarballs may contain > > non-free files. > > > Now the question is : do you think it's fine for etch or do we have to > > not ignore the situation ? > > As said in my previous email, sourceless executables need to be removed from > the source package and are not etch-ignore. I don't know what OJI files are > and google doesn't help very much, so I don't know whether these are more > like binary executables, or more like documentation. > > So on the whole, this is not an etch-ignorable issue; particular files may > be etch-ignorable, but if you're going to have to prune the source package > anyway, maybe it's easier to just remove questionable files if you know > they're not used/needed, rather than spending time trying to determine if > they're ok. Then untagging etch-ignore and cloning on all the concerned packages. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
