> I am willing to sponsor your package if you accept to put it under the Debian Science Team umbrella.
Thank you! I have no problems at all putting segyio under Debian science. > I quickly looked at your packaging and it looks good. One point: you put your packaging under the GPL, while upstream code is under the LGPL. Even though I am a strong GPL-advocate, this may not be the right choice: this means that patches that you contribute will not be under a license suitable for upstream. So the recommended practice is to use the same license in the packaging as upstream, but in the last analysis this is your call. I don't mind switching to LGPL for the packaging, if it makes patching easier for everyone, so I'll fix this immediately. I'll read the packaging policy carefully and hopefully fix all packaging issues by tonight or tomorrow afternoon. ________________________________________ From: Sébastien Villemot <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:15:58 PM To: Jørgen Kvalsvik Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Nicolas Boulenguez Subject: Re: Bug #866601: RFS: segyio package is ready Dear Jørgen, On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 05:40:06PM +0000, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote: > I consider the package segyio ready for consideration in Debian, and I'm > looking for a sponsor for the package. > > Please see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=866601 and > https://mentors.debian.net/package/segyio for more details. I am willing to sponsor your package if you accept to put it under the Debian Science Team umbrella. Instructions are there: http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html (you should mostly follow them except for two things: 1) priority "extra" has been deprecated, so "optional" should be used instead; 2) in the Vcs-Browser field, "/git/" should be replaced by "/cgit/"). Ideally you should also categorize your package in one of the metapackages, see chapter 2 (or even create a new metapackage if your package fits into no existing category). I quickly looked at your packaging and it looks good. One point: you put your packaging under the GPL, while upstream code is under the LGPL. Even though I am a strong GPL-advocate, this may not be the right choice: this means that patches that you contribute will not be under a license suitable for upstream. So the recommended practice is to use the same license in the packaging as upstream, but in the last analysis this is your call. Best, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org ------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you
