Hi Reinhard (and Matheus, who presumably finalized the process), Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2026-01-23 15:32:40) > > I've been looking at this package, you can see its review status at > https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/reviews/python-notobuilder
Thanks for your investigation - which congratulations on your kickstarting the DFSG, Licensing & New Packages Team. Much appreciated! By now, the package has been approved, but I choose to follow up anyway because I have issues with your last question which I will raise as a general question to debian-project - and to avoid it being mistaken as a personal issue (which it very much isn't), I will clarify my concrete reflections here and keep that other post more general. > This package depends on at least 3 package not currently in Debian: > python3-chevron, python3-diffenator2, python3-gftools-, > python3-ufomerge. Why is that? Are those dependencies an oversight or > intentional? Hmm, it sounds like you are investigating the -1 package, not taking into account the corrections I made in -2 introduced to NEW few hours later? > Note that python3-gftools- looks suspicious, can you please clarify why > that is? Same as above... > I note that the debian/ packaging is under a different license than the > actual package. Usually the packaging follows the usptream license for > simpliciy. What's the reason for diverging here? Why do you ask? I mean, is it part of the scope of your investigation to question how I choose to license my contributions to Debian, also when my choice is compliant with the DFSG? Which Debian Policy do this quetion concern? If none, and your question is tied to some unwritten golden rule, then how am I able to avoid burdening future investiongations, given that I cannot read your minds and you operate from unwritten rules? This last question of yours made me hesitate replying at all: I felt that I was being unreasonably pressured to defend my choice of licensing - that your role as gatekeeper for getting my work approvied into Debian caused your personal opinions on what licensing choices are "better" would unfairly bias mine. So I stuck my head in the sand and waited for that danger to go away. And happily it did: The package got approved. Thanks for your investigation - I am sure your intentions were purely and genuinely constructive and helpful. The negative impression I had has no doubt to do with more general, systematic thinking of what is licensing of Debian packaging about, and what is Debian about, compared to upstream and the larger ecosystem of Free and Open Source software, nothing about your personal opinions. So instead of continuing that here, I will raise that general concern at the debian-project mailinglist, only beifly pointing to this bugreport (if needed at all). Kind regards, and enjoy your new role in the DLN¹ Team, - Jonas ¹ I doubt the long official name will be used much in casual conversions, and abbreviating like this mostly as a joke - frankly I guess that the common name for the team will become the DFSG Team (hopefully not the the licensing team, because british/american spelling differnce will that make it painful to reliably grep for it in email archives :-P ) -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
