[3dprinter-general] A Sponsor for Printrun

Rock Storm rockstorm at gmx.com
Tue Mar 1 19:29:18 UTC 2016

Dear 3D Printing Team,

First of all, thanks a lot for your answers, a new version of the
package has been uploaded [1], I hope it incorporates all your

** debian/copyright:

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 22:37 +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> why did you write in your debian/copyright that calibrateextruder.py
> is licensed under GPL-2+ and printrun/gui/bufferedcanvas.py is under
> LGPL-2.1+ ? Isn't there only GPL-3+ in the file headers?
> But printrun/gl/libtatlin/actors.py seems to be GPL-2+. Further
> Joseph Benden and Max Retter did some contribution (as well as
> others) and want to be mentioned in debian/copyright.
> Strictly speaking Jonathan Marsden claims copyright of
> locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/pronterface.po but gave no license information.

I trusted the work of the previous maintainers, but you are correct,
the file is simply not right. I rewrited debian/copyright after having
talked with upstream developers to figure out what to do with those
files with no copyright or applicable license stated on them [2].

** debian/changelog and versioning scheme:

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 21:33 +0000, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> UNRELEASED should only be used for the top entry, while it is not yet
> released. It should not appear anywhere else.
> Giving credit to the work you based your packaging on is good, but
> debian/changelog is not the place to do it

The debian/changelog file has been cleaned up and the first and only
entry has been set as “unreleased".

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 21:33 +0000, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> A version of the form YYYMMDD sorts properly, so you can simply use
> it without "0~".  It is higher than the last released version (that
> people may have installed; if in doubt, only versions in Debian
> count), so no need to add an epoch either.

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 22:37 +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Wouldn't 20150310 be greater than 0.0.x? So why don't you just leave
> the epoch and 0~ ?

I agree with you both, no need to change the epoch, but shouldn’t I
keep the “0~”? My idea was to upload current latest version and try to
convince upstream to adopt the versioning format of 1.2.3 for future
releases, hence the “0~” to anticipate this transition. I’d rather use
the versioning format 1.2.3 over the YYYYMMDD because it gives much
more information about the kind of upgrade going on, whether it is a
mayor release or just some minor adjustments. Would it be too much to
ask upstream? Is it very improbable that they would agree to do such
thing? Or maybe it is better to simply stick to what there is right now
and forget about anticipations?

** The two pedantic-lintian warnings 

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 21:33 +0000, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> My guess is that in this case upstream will not care about adding a
> changelog, and I don't blame them.  So then there are three things
> that can be done:
> 1. Keep the warning and hope that upstream changes their mind at some
>    point. Optionally talk to upstream to try to convince them of the
>    benefits of fixing this. [...]
> 2. Report a bug to Lintian that this should not trigger a   
>    warning.  That is an option if you consider it a false positive,  
>    and many other packages are likely suffering from it as     
>    well.  That seems reasonable in this case.
> 3. Add a lintian override to your package. THIS IS ALMOST ALWAYS    
>    WRONG! [...]

I was hoping to upload the package despite of these two warnings, after
all they are both “just” pedantic warnings. I think it is good and
necessary that lintian warns about them so I believe I should stick to
option 1 in both cases: trying to convince upstream to elaborate a
proper changelog for future releases. However, talking upstream into
signing the tarballs seems highly unlikely to me.

I asked this matter to debian-legal [3] and I conclude that upstream
not delivering a changelog file is unfortunate but does not violate the
GPL v3. Therefore the package is acceptable despite the lintian warning
although it would be nice to ask upstream to elaborate a changelog.

I am looking forward to hearing further comments and advice.

Thanks a lot again,


[1] http://mentors.debian.net/package/printrun
[2] https://github.com/kliment/Printrun/issues/725
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2016/02/msg00043.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/3dprinter-general/attachments/20160301/7bc1baa7/attachment.sig>

More information about the 3dprinter-general mailing list