Your message dated Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:52:24 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion
has caused the Debian Bug report #974992,
regarding Licencing disagreement causes user confusion
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
974992: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=974992
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: vrms
Version: 1.27
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
fonts-ubuntu is shipped by default on Ubuntu systems. It has significant
reverse dependencies and cannot be uninstalled easily.
Debian considers fonts-ubuntu to be “non-free”, while Canonical
disagrees. But vrms lists fonts-ubuntu as non-free also on Ubuntu systems.
Recently I have seen two Ask Ubuntu questions where users have run vrms,
found fonts-ubuntu to be non-free, and tried to uninstall the package:
* https://askubuntu.com/q/1292336
* https://askubuntu.com/q/1292751
This situation is unfortunate. Given the difference in opinion, I would
suggest that vrms does not count fonts-ubuntu as non-free when built on
Ubuntu systems.
--
Thanks!
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:19:59AM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> > actually I dont see a merge request anywhere(???)
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/vrms/-/merge_requests/1
oh, thanks, I've changed the notifications for this repo so I will see future
merge requests!
> > That file refers to #603157 which is a rather old and which states that
> > a.) the Ubuntu Fonts License 1.0 is an interim solution and b.) that
> > everybody would like to fix the build system, so that ubuntu-fonts could
> > probably also go into main in Debian. Do you know of any progress on
> > these issues?
> Can't tell if anything has happened there. My attention to the issue was
> called the other day via the Ask Ubuntu questions I mentioned in the
> beginning of this bug report.
I'd really like to see ubuntu-fonts in Debian main, and it seems doable! ;)
> What you say makes sense. The reason I submitted this bug was that it's the
> existence of vrms which makes it an issue. Anyway, I'll see if it can be
> handled in src:fonts-ubuntu instead.
> Thanks!
likewise thanks & closing this bug.
(It's quite interesting to see how widespread vrms's usage is and this is a
factor for deciding on how to go forward with "#962696: vrms: please consider
renaming package"...)
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
⠈⠳⣄
"Climate change" is an euphenism. "Global warming" as well.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
