Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 04:52:26 +0000
with message-id <>
and subject line Bug#869982: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #678216,
regarding icewm-themes: copyright file does not give location of source, 
licence statements not included
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

Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: icewm-themes
Version: 1.2.26-2
Severity: serious
Justification: ยง12.5 copyright must say where the upstream sources were obtained

We were looking at this package as a result of a question on #debian and
realised that, on the basis of the information in debian/copyright, we had
no idea where these themes had actually come from and that there was no
evidence that these themes were indeed licensed under the GPL-2 as asserted.

Currently, debian/copyright points to

for tarballs, but none are apparent on this page, just a link to a generic
theme download site I looked for a few of the themes there and
didn't find them.

There is then a pretty vague statement that "most themes have been downloaded
or updated" from

This website no longer exists and redirects to a generic software archive
page. I tried to find a few of these themes in this generic archive and
was not able to do so. "Most" is also not sufficient for me to work out which
themes are from this site or perhaps some other site.

Next is a statement that some themes were obtained from:

which is a webserver that doesn't appear to ever respond. Also, which themes
were from there? grep gives me a list of a few, but is that all of them? I
guess I would expect debian/copyright to tell me this in an aggregated work
like this.

I then moved on from debian/copyright and looked for more information to work
out where these themes had come from. The package comes with a README.source
that looked promising as a way of documenting where the themes came from...
excellent... except:

  "modifications are applied through the dpatch mechanism."

A minor thing -- this package no longer uses dpatch as of the last upload.

  "The currently available themes (and those that are processed by Makefile)
  are listed in THEME.list."

What THEME.list?

  "They are either downloadable from the mentioned location"

Mentioned where? Is this in the missing THEME.list? It's certainly not in
copyright. It's not in the default.theme file in the theme directories.

  "apt-get source icewm-themes"

That doesn't really sound like instructions for where the upstream sources
were obtained... it's a bit self-referential!

  "make getfromdeb" gets them only from the source package.
  "make shownew" shows new dirs, looking like theme dirs and
  "make checkin" adds all new dirs to the THEME.list.

None of these targets exist in the Makefile.

I understand that debian/copyright for a package that is assembled from
multiple sources like this is a complicated thing to write and maintain.
I would, however, expect to see the information required by policy to be
listed and the information required by the ftp team to be listed. For example,
the ftp team has previously offered the following advice on what should be
in a copyright file:

Based on that, it would be nice to clearly describe EACH theme:

Theme: blah
Copyright: 2001-2003 Jane Smith
Licence: This is free software blah blah...

(the copyright format 1.0 (formerly known as DEP-5) may be of use here too,
but doesn't handle multi-component sources like this gracefully)

Ideally, each directory would have some sort of README or AUTHORS as some of
them already do. In this files, the creator of the theme is stating that the
licence is as claimed in debian/copyright. I realise that this is not always
possible though. Shame. Being able to demonstrate that the licence is what you
say it is wins over an assertion without evidence.

For your information, the visitor to #debian who brought this up stated that he
believed that a number of these themes were NOT GPLv2 as asserted and that some
were undistributable. I guess you can expect him to file a separate bug report
about that.


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.2.26-2+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package icewm-themes has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing

Debian distribution maintenance software
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to