Re: compiled binary file in source package
Miroslav Kravec <kravec.miroslav@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand the question. I think you are asking about
> > general-purpose, third-party-maintained development tools.
> >
> > If so: yes, the recommendation is that third-party-maintained
> > software should not be bundled, but instead packaged for general use
> > in a separate Debian package. […]
>
> Well, policy https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#convenience-copies-of-code
> says, that a package should not include convenience copies of
> software, for which there's already a package in Debian archive.
The section, §4.13 at the URL you cite, states:
[…] Debian packages should not make use of these convenience copies
unless the included package is explicitly intended to be used in
this way. If the included code is already in the Debian archive in
the form of a library, the Debian packaging should ensure that
binary packages reference the libraries already in Debian and the
convenience copy is not used. If the included code is not already in
Debian, it should be packaged separately as a prerequisite if
possible.
That's essentially what I paraphrased in my message, quoted above.
> > If you mean something different, can you clarify?
>
> I mean, whether Debian community officially encourages developers to
> have their software packaged, if there's no technical need to include
> their software as convenience copy.
The Debian Wiki has an Upstream Guide, which discusses our expectations
for upstream releases of works. The discussion of the source tarball
<URL:https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Source_only_tarball> has the
request you're asking about, I think.
--
\ “If the arguments in favor of atheism upset you, explain why |
`\ they’re wrong. If you can’t do that, that’s your problem.” |
_o__) —Amanda Marcotte, 2015-02-13 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: