Packaging Open Sankoré for Debian/Ubuntu

Mike Gabriel mike.gabriel at
Tue Jul 17 16:42:29 UTC 2012

Hi Cyril, hi all,

thanks for your quick response. We will be happy to help with open  
questions if we can.

On Di 17 Jul 2012 03:03:02 CEST Cyril Pavillard wrote:

>> I am supporting Miriam with the packaging work of Open-Sankoré. I  
>> am not sure if she already replied to your mail (I might have  
>> missed it). If not I dare to answer your mail von her and the  
>> Debian Edu Paackaging Team's behalf.
> Thank you for your answer, I haven't had an answer from Miriam but  
> I'm happy to get your answer as it's getting here right on time for  
> the preparation of version 2.0. I'm also putting in copy M. Capello  
> which we had a contact with to help us work on some part of the  
> Debian project so he can follow the course of our discussion if it's  
> ok with you.

Ok, thanks for completing / enlarging the list of involved people.

Good to know that the point of time is good for packaging.  
Unfortunately, we by short have missed the Debian freeze for Debian  
7.0 (aka wheezy). So, Sankoré will be in the Debian release that comes  
_after_ wheezy. We may quite surely provide backported packages ASAP  
for Debian squeeze and/or wheezy (I personally have a deep interest in  

>>> I'm really interested by your proposition and we definitely would  
>>> love to go on with working with you in order to be compliant with  
>>> Debian and your official repositories.
>> For Debian packaging several upstream source availabilities are  
>> thinkable. In most projects upstream provides source tarballs and  
>> these then are mangled into Debian packages.
>> For the current package draft we obtained a Git version of Open-Sankoré:
> Ok, this is correct, I will let Claudio get you some feedback on  
> this if necessary.

So first thing that would be really helpful are either version tags in  
Git or source tarball releases with a designated version number.

Either or is feasible, please provide some information on how to  
obtain your certified/tested upstream code releases.

Help with identifying your upstream source code release will be much  

(And it may just be that my eyes just lack to see the information  
provided by you. A handful of informative URLs will do.)

>>> We are currently planning to release version 1.4 of Open-Sankoré  
>>> so we can correct any confusion for this upcoming release.
>> I am getting a little confused about the version number you mention  
>> above. If the GitHUB repos refers to 3.1 and you to the upcoming  
>> release as 1.4 I suppose that there is some inconsistency.
>> Do you have upstream tarballs and a respective download location  
>> for those? If so, please help us with providing such an URL. Thanks  
>> a lot.
>> Maybe you also can go into details on the versioning scheme
> Yes, the confusion comes to the fact that the french government that  
> is financing the project for now had decided to name the software  
> "Open Sankore 3.1" (the 3.1 was standing for "3 in 1") and had  
> nothing to do with the version of the software. We finally managed  
> to make them change that as it was confusing for everyone.
> So now, the software is named "Open-Sankoré" and the version is 1.4

Ah... ok. The above is indeed confusing. Good that you got it changed.

> It has just been decided that the next version (which we are  
> currently working on) is going to be version 2.0 as it will be a  
> major release with important new features.

Good. What is the ETA for 2.0? (I guess, it probably depends on  
getting the licensing straight, see below). So let me rephrase my  
question: what is your favourite ETA for 2.0?

>>> According to our sources/contact, based on the libraries we use,  
>>> it seems that the use of the LGPL v2.0 licence is the best for now  
>>> but any feedback is welcome.
>> LGPL-2 is just fine, please make sure that all file headers bare  
>> the same information regarding the upstream license.
> This is a part where we could also benefit from your expertise.


> We would like to be sure that for version 2.0 we have clearly  
> complied with the license credit on the software (which you can find  
> on the Open-Sankoré menu -> Preferences -> Licences) and the  
> libraries we're using.

Please provide a location for the licensing information that does not  
require the software to be running. Please provide it in one place (or  
web-linked well). I will take a look at what you have then (i.e.  
license information on website, in upstream source tree, etc.).

> Is there any way you can give us a hand on that as well ?


1. Check our list of library dependencies Sankoré currently needs for  
building (field Build-Depends: in /debian/control file):;a=blob;f=debian/control

2. For each library look-up its license and provide its name (i.e.  
make a list)
3. Do you include code from other authors inside the sankore code tree? If so,
    are you in the position of changing the original license?
4. Do you ship non-sankore software with your code, if so from what projects?
    Where is the code hosted in Git (folder names etc.)?
5. Do you have non-upstream contributors for plugins? Name the plugin  
    point to a download location for source code?
6. ...
n. After we have worked out a proper license (I guess LGPL-2 wil be  
just fine),
    you have to adapt file headers in your upstream code, possibly discuss with
    other authors of your code etc. pp.

Other people may add information / needed work. My list maybe  
incomplete but a start to work on.

Please make sure to include  
debian-edu-pkg-team at The list does not require  
membership for posting.



mike gabriel, rothenstein 5, 24214 neudorf-bornstein
fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148

GnuPG Key ID 0xB588399B
mail: mike.gabriel at,

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digitale PGP-Unterschrift
URL: <>

More information about the Debian-edu-pkg-team mailing list