On 29 April 2014 21:02, Thomas Koch <tho...@koch.ro> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements >> for the Debian archive. The FTP master view of this are based on both >> item 1 of the social contract (Debian will remain 100% free) and item 2 of >> the DFSG (The program must include source code ...). We consider source >> packages to be part of the Debian system and as such all files in source >> packages must come with their source as required by the DFSG (and be >> distributable under a free license). > > For clarity: Is it OK for languageCompilerX, which happens to be written in > languageX, to ship a compiled binary of languageCompilerX in the source > package for languageCompilerX? >
of course not, do a bootstrap each time, or provide a separate bootstrap package in the archive, such that other people can reproduce the boostrap process. circular build-dependency on one-self is always bad. What's your concrete example at the moment? or is this just a hypothetical corner case? (typically resolved with a package doing profile builds -> first doing a stage1 upload, and then upload the full build, or a separate src+bin package which is a fallback/alternative build-dependency for the bootstrap) -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/canbhluge06aux6ysh5mffjx2tivsw3gad8km0dg4yxsdox9...@mail.gmail.com
