[Debian-med-packaging] camp_0.7.1.5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Flavien Bridault]

Hi Thorsten,

I discussed this issue with my colleagues and we have some propositions
to fix this.

Camp is a dependency for fw4spl, the package that I want to push on
Debian. However camp is no longer maintained by tegesoft. That's why we
forked it a while ago, and during this time, we fixed some issues, like
c++11 support. Corentin built the former camp debian package based on
this fork. However in the meantime, some pull-requests have been merged
on the main repository and they changed the licence as well. Today the
project looks clearly abandoned and it seems we are the only one to care
about it. There is a new fork, ponder, which is recommended by the
former developers but we have not yet considered the switch as the
library satisfies our needs in the current state.

So our first proposition, the simplest, would be to start a new fork,
based on the latest MIT licence, on which we put all the changes we made
so far, C++11 support and some tabs removal (iirc Corentin did that for
debian packaging). Does it sound right ? An another solution would be to
stick to the "official" abandoned repository and apply our modifications
as debian patches, but that might be a bit more tedious to maintain for
us in the future because we will have to synchronize these patches and
our fork. Last we could also try to propose a pull-request but I don't
feel confident that it is merged at the end, according to the message in
the README.md and also the fact that http://dev.tegesoft.com/ returns a 404.

What do you think about that ?

Thanks again for your time.

Le 28/11/2016 à 14:33, Flavien Bridault a écrit :
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> I have no idea why Corentin removed the upstream licence files by a
> patch, it is sufficient I guess to not install them. I've just tried to
> keep them at build and it doesn't prevent the package to built, I mean
> there is no error reported by lintian for instance.
>
> For the copyright, I'm not sure what bothers you exactly. For the
> debian/* folder, maybe I should add myself as well ?
>
> For the copyright of camp, at the time we forked the project, it was in
> LGPL. I checked and then they switch to MIT in 2014. So maybe that's
> what bothers you ? The copyright belonged to TECHNOGERMA when we fork
> and now it belongs to tegesoft... So I'm not sure which one I should
> use. I guess I should stick with TECHNOGERMA but you might then find
> confusing that we report https://github.com/tegesoft/camp as the Source:
> field in the copyright file.
>
> Thanks for your work,
>
> Le 28/11/2016 à 14:00, Thorsten Alteholz a écrit :
>> Hi Flavien,
>>
>> please rework your debian/copyright. The information in it contradict itself.
>> It is also rather strange to change upstreams license files by a patch.
>>
>>   Thorsten
>>
>>
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
>> your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
>> concerns.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debian-med-packaging mailing list
> Debian-med-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20161128/d7d0b598/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20161128/d7d0b598/attachment-0001.sig>