Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
On 23/01/2013 22:16, Ralf Treinen wrote:
the source package is now available at
http://people.debian.org/~treinen/ace/
I would appreciate if you could check that everything is fine
before I will upload it to sid. If possible I would like to upload
over the coming weekend at latest.
[...]
Finally I played it as conservative as possible and left the tao*
files under debian/ as they do not hurt. Here is the changelog
entry:
ace (6.0.3+dfsg-0.1) unstable; urgency=low
* NMU with maintainers blessing. * Remove upstream files with
nonfree licence (closes: #697848) or without source (closes:
#697847): - repack the orig tarball by removing:
bin/LabVIEW_RT/*.exe examples/{C++NPv2,C++NPv1,APG}/ TAO/ -
debian/control: drop all packages named *tao* - debian/rules: drop
everything related to tao - remove all hunks applying to TAO files
in patch reduce-doxygen-doc.diff - drop patch 34-bts386713.diff
since it applies only to TAO files. - debian/copyright: remove
copyright entries of TAO/, and of the directories under examples/
that have been removed. * Bump version in build-dependency on
debhelper to =9 since we are using debhelper compatibility level
9.
-- Ralf Treinen trei...@debian.org Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:27:40
+0100
I've reviewed the changes: you did a really good job. A minor issue
remain since some packages now suggest no longer existing tao packages.
(But I have to admit I have no idea why these suggestions were written
in the first place.)
I am doing a compilation now, results expected sooner than tomorrow I
guess now that TAO was stripped off.
Unless something weird happens during that build I approve your
changes.
In what concerns a new tao package for nonfree I leave that to
you ...
However, it certainly is too late in the release process to
introduce a new tao-nonfree package into wheezy/non-free.
Probably. Bad timing, really. I'm sad that the next Debian release will
not include TAO.
Thanks for your work,
Regards,
Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAlEC8cMACgkQz2LXlDjmjg5WmQCdFF2rtMqNJMgFckSa79ovaOdi
iL4An05AfpbLIdiTDJkMx+4Pnqwed0ey
=a04o
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?
Hello, On 23/01/2013 08:39, Ralf Treinen wrote: OK. Here is what I will try tonight when I get back from work: - repack the orig.tar.gz without the two windows executables, the TAO source tree, and the files in examples/ that are under Addison Wesley licence. There is something slightly easier here: pick the ACE only tarball [1] that does not suffer from all issues mentioned before except for the bin/LabVIEW_RT Windows executables. - remove all tao-related packages from debian/control, that is Package: libtao-2.1.2 Package: libtao-dev Package: libtao-doc Package: libtao-orbsvcs-2.1.2 Package: libtao-orbsvcs-dev Package: libtao-qtresource-2.1.2 Package: libtao-qtresource-dev Package: libtao-xtresource-2.1.2 Package: libtao-xtresource-dev Package: libtao-flresource-2.1.2 Package: libtao-flresource-dev Package: libtao-tkresource-2.1.2 Package: libtao-tkresource-dev Package: libtao-foxresource-2.1.2 Package: libtao-foxresource-dev Package: tao-idl Package: tao-ifr Package: tao-imr Package: tao-ft Package: tao-utils Package: tao-cosnaming Package: tao-naming Package: tao-costrading Package: tao-trading Package: tao-cosevent Package: tao-event Package: tao-rtevent Package: tao-ftrtevent Package: tao-cosnotification Package: tao-notify Package: tao-load Package: tao-tls Package: tao-log Package: tao-scheduling Package: tao-cosconcurrency Package: tao-concurrency Package: tao-coslifecycle Package: tao-lifecycle Package: tao-costime Package: tao-time - remove all files from debian/ that are related to these packages, and other mentions of tao stuff in debian/rules and possibly elsewhere in debian/* files. In what concerns a new tao package for nonfree I leave that to you ... This plan looks good, thanks for stepping in; this is really appreciated. I might be able to help if needed from Friday on. Thanks, Regards, Thomas [1] http://download.dre.vanderbilt.edu/previous_versions/ACE-src-6.0.3.tar.bz2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:28:00PM +0100, Thomas Girard wrote: Hello, On 23/01/2013 08:39, Ralf Treinen wrote: OK. Here is what I will try tonight when I get back from work: - repack the orig.tar.gz without the two windows executables, the TAO source tree, and the files in examples/ that are under Addison Wesley licence. There is something slightly easier here: pick the ACE only tarball [1] that does not suffer from all issues mentioned before except for the bin/LabVIEW_RT Windows executables. Oops, saw your message too late. I am almost done now by repackaging the tarball. I'll put the source package on people.d.o so that you can review it before the upload to sid. -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Girard thomas.g.gir...@free.frwrote: On 22/01/2013 21:40, Ralf Treinen wrote: I'm more annoyed by #697848. The first two issues raised by Ansgar were not yet discussed with upstream because I need a confirmation on what is exactly the issue. If this is what I underlined in my reply then I am afraid we will have no easy solution except for moving ace to non-free. I am afraid I agree with Ansgar that the licence is rife with problems, in particular the part where you are not allowed to remove functionality. This can be read as forbidding to rip part of the source code and reuse it in a different projet. Can it be DFSG-free if this is not allowed ? Agreed, but I believe Sun intent here was to ensure that standardization and implementation efforts (IDL to C++ and IIOP marshalling rules) do not get ruined by code modifications. Yes, I am interpreting. @Johnny: any opinion on this? See [1] for the context. I'm afraid Johnny was not CC'ed in your mail, do not forget to add pkg-ace-devel to the CC list Different parts of the source code are covered by different licences. The question for me was rather whether it is possible to keep a kernel ace package containing only source code that is not covered by problematic licences, and possibly move the rest into an ace-nonfree package. Are you saying that this is not possible, and that the only possible action would be to move everything to non-free? I don't know anything about the structure of the ace package. ace source package consists in the following software: - ACE, a C++ networking library - TAO, a CORBA ORB built on top of ACE What is faulty here is TAO_IDL (idl to C++ mapping) and a piece of marshalling code (again, for TAO). So ACE can remain in main, but TAO has to go to non-free. This means two repackaging: one for ACE and another for TAO (not distributed stand-alone ATM) in non-free. Can we try to get that code relicensed? I'd say Remedy, OCI and even the very DOC Group are infringing the license themselves by redistributing and modifying[*] this code. [*] I have not checked the SVN repository yet but I'd bet the code has suffered at least some modification since it was written and Addison Wesley wrote that license -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
Bug#697848: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:30:14PM +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: Can we try to get that code relicensed? I'd say Remedy, OCI and even the very DOC Group are infringing the license themselves by redistributing and modifying[*] this code. [*] I have not checked the SVN repository yet but I'd bet the code has suffered at least some modification since it was written and Addison Wesley wrote that license Relicensing is probably the best solution, generally speaking, but I suppose it will come too late for wheezy. -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
