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

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Flavien,

just a short top-posting.  May be you missed my mail yesterday since I
sticked to the mailing list policy and dropped the CC which worked
several times before to reach you.

I'm pretty sure that Thorsten did not digged in the history of the camp
code.  Ftpmaster is usually inspecting what's inside the upload if there
are no explicite hints to external license statements (may be I'm wrong
here - I admit the message was very short :-().  My guess is that the
"contradicts itself" statement was about the GPL-3 - GPL-2
"conflict"^Wtypo in the debian/* paragraph which I fixed yesterday.

While I need to say that merging a project with another fork might make
perfectly sense technically this was not in the original mind of the
initial mail.

For the moment I'd recommend uploading as is to have a chance to get
fw4spl into the next stable release.

Kind regards

        Andreas.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:50:14PM +0100, Flavien Bridault wrote:
> 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 However camp is no longer maintained by tegesoft.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
> 




> _______________________________________________
> 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


-- 
http://fam-tille.de