On 23/08/18 12:01, Paul Wise wrote: Hi, thanks for replies!
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: > >> It's not that I don't understand your reasoning. Still, if this is the >> conclusion, it's kind of sad because it's means that a price-awarded [1] >> application won't be packaged in Debian. Upstream is very clear on this. > > Please note that I only mentioned my personal opinion, in practice > Debian's opinion is that bundling is fine, even of unmodified stuff > that is already packaged and especially for modified or unpackaged > things. There are tons of code/data copies in the archive, many of > which are registered with the security team (see the wiki page linked > earlier) and many which are not. OK, if all agrees on this I would be happy... Note that the approach in [2] is that we are trying to do our homework and unbundle things we "can", so to speak. >> the embedded communities would really need a pure Debian package. > Hmm, why would Flatpak not work for them? Flatpak isn't that space effective, the downloads are large. Multiple downloads are de-duplicated, but it's still a lot of bytes. OTOH, it could be argued that any system using OpenCPN needs a lot of storage for charts. But still... >> Fedora today basically allows bundling. > > I thought they actually had a similar policy to Debian; if possible, > try not to bundle but if you cannot avoid it, fine. We only use > "should" after all. Perhaps not that different from what you describe here [1] Cheers! --alec [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries [2] https://github.com/OpenCPN/OpenCPN/issues/1124
