Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
Quoting Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (2014-08-27 03:58:48) Le lundi, 4 août 2014, 15.19:46 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : 9.06 Requires a SONAME bump and therefore a coordinated library transition. After discussing this with Julien Cristau, I've done the following: a) get the list of symbols dropped between stable and 9.06 b) verify which of these are present in .h files in the stable source package c) objdump -x | grep for these symbols in all binaries from all reverse dependencies of libgs9 (aka gimp, libspectre1 and texlive-binaries) for both unstable and stable (for partial upgrades). Given that none of said symbols is found in any of these binaries, the SONAME bump is not technically required. I will therefore 9.06 as it is very soon now. The good solution to this problem would be to (get upstream to) limit the number of exposed symbols and ensure a stable ABI across releases. That could be done with a Debian patch but it needs a good understanding of which interfaces the library is really meant to expose, and I'm nowhere near this point now. Plan forward 1a) Release 9.06 to unstable 1b) Prepare 9.14 2) Release 9.10 to unstable when 9.06 is in testing I think we should rather focus on making 9.09 available in jessie as that's the latest GPL version as I understand this. ~/ghostscript$ git grep -B1 AGPL upstream/9.07_dfsg doc/News.htm upstream/9.07_dfsg:doc/News.htm-p As of this release (9.07), Ghostscript and GhostPDL are distributed under upstream/9.07_dfsg:doc/News.htm:the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL). Frankly, it'd be really nice to get upstream revert this license change which will cause headaches (or straight interdictions in some corporations) for many people, including us as maintainers. I raised concerns with upstream on irc. My impression was that they've spent a big effort ending at AGPL and are tired of discussing it - in particular they are reluctant to discuss it in public. I then raised the issue at debian-devel where surprisingly few reacted, and later when a substantial concern was raised on irc I recommended to share that as a follow-up to the mailinglist thread so as to be able to point upstream to it. That did not happen. I recommend that we have refined arguments reday before (again) approaching upstream - e.g. as a wiki page referencing various substantial views. I'd be happy to continue the dialogue with upstream but others are welcome too - just please be gentle: Debian has a track record upstream for not understanding licensing issues e.g. font folks pressuring to relicense which was not owned, only distributed, by them. Any upload for Ghostscript = 9.10 should not be done before ensuring that all reverse dependencies can live with an AGPL Ghostscript. Correction: = 9.07 (see above). Could you please elaborate which insurance you are talking about here? @Odyx: As agreed, please go ahead with testing 9.06 and when believed working start coordinate the library transition with the release team. I will just upload, it doesn't a transition given the checks I've done and mentionned above. You are quite welcome to join maintenance of Ghostscript, but I got the impression that you have your hands full with CUPS and printer drivers. What I suggested was that you helped with paperwork around the package, but leave it to me to do the actual release of it. Let me repeat: You are *quite* welcome to participate in maintenance of Ghostscript packaging. Just beware that that's what you are now doing. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
Quoting Jonathan Nieder (2014-08-27 04:31:59) Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le lundi, 4 août 2014, 15.19:46 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Plan forward 1a) Release 9.06 to unstable 1b) Prepare 9.14 2) Release 9.10 to unstable when 9.06 is in testing [...] Any upload for Ghostscript = 9.10 should not be done before ensuring that all reverse dependencies can live with an AGPL Ghostscript. I've been thinking more about this --- would it make sense to change the -dev package name so maintainers of reverse dependencies have to actively check that they've done whatever's needed to make license compliance easy for users before adopting the new version? That's easy to do for the packaging of Ghostscript, but (deliberately) disruptive for other packages: Since there is no alternative (as is the case e.g. for libcurl4-*-dev) packages that cannot comply are essentially doomed. ...so how is it therefore in practice any different from filing RC bugs against any and all reverse dependencies, which they can simply close when verified that licensing is ok? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
Hi, Le lundi, 4 août 2014, 15.19:46 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : 9.06 Requires a SONAME bump and therefore a coordinated library transition. After discussing this with Julien Cristau, I've done the following: a) get the list of symbols dropped between stable and 9.06 b) verify which of these are present in .h files in the stable source package c) objdump -x | grep for these symbols in all binaries from all reverse dependencies of libgs9 (aka gimp, libspectre1 and texlive-binaries) for both unstable and stable (for partial upgrades). Given that none of said symbols is found in any of these binaries, the SONAME bump is not technically required. I will therefore 9.06 as it is very soon now. The good solution to this problem would be to (get upstream to) limit the number of exposed symbols and ensure a stable ABI across releases. That could be done with a Debian patch but it needs a good understanding of which interfaces the library is really meant to expose, and I'm nowhere near this point now. Plan forward 1a) Release 9.06 to unstable 1b) Prepare 9.14 2) Release 9.10 to unstable when 9.06 is in testing I think we should rather focus on making 9.09 available in jessie as that's the latest GPL version as I understand this. Frankly, it'd be really nice to get upstream revert this license change which will cause headaches (or straight interdictions in some corporations) for many people, including us as maintainers. Any upload for Ghostscript = 9.10 should not be done before ensuring that all reverse dependencies can live with an AGPL Ghostscript. @Odyx: As agreed, please go ahead with testing 9.06 and when believed working start coordinate the library transition with the release team. I will just upload, it doesn't a transition given the checks I've done and mentionned above. Cheers, OdyX signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
Hi, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le lundi, 4 août 2014, 15.19:46 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Plan forward 1a) Release 9.06 to unstable 1b) Prepare 9.14 2) Release 9.10 to unstable when 9.06 is in testing I think we should rather focus on making 9.09 available in jessie as that's the latest GPL version as I understand this. Unfortunately, 9.07 is already AGPL. [...] Any upload for Ghostscript = 9.10 should not be done before ensuring that all reverse dependencies can live with an AGPL Ghostscript. I've been thinking more about this --- would it make sense to change the -dev package name so maintainers of reverse dependencies have to actively check that they've done whatever's needed to make license compliance easy for users before adopting the new version? Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
Control: retitle -1 ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.14 available Any news? On 2014-04-10 10:50:36 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Ghostscript 9.07 and newer use the AGPL. I assume that would be fine for most uses but it's possible some rdeps would need to be updated to provide a download link so it's probably worth a NEWS.Debian entry. If you provide a download link, please make sure you provide a signature / signature link or reliable hash as well for security reasons. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: https://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: https://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
[including printing team as CC, and dropping others] Hi Vincent, Thanks for nudging about this! Quoting Vincent Lefevre (2014-08-04 10:10:09) Control: retitle -1 ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.14 available Any news? 9.14 Introduces new ramfs code unfortunately lacking licensing: http://www.ghostscript.com/irclogs/2014/05/05.html Not yet prepared for Debian. 9.10 Requires a SONAME bump and therefore a coordinated library transition. Changes licensing from GPL-3+ to AGPL-3+ which may cause trouble for some reverse dependencies. Maybe (according to ansgar on irc) licensing change may not be legally correct (added contraints has to be approved by contributors like Apple), but arguably that is not for Debian to question. Prepared and available in experimental since some months. Tested that binary packages work alone - but need test-building against reverse dependencies. Help doing that is much appreciated! 9.06 Requires a SONAME bump and therefore a coordinated library transition. Prepared since some months and now available (unsigned) at https://debian.jones.dk/pkg/printing/ghostscript/sid/bastian/ and with this APT line: deb http://debian.jones.dk/ sid printing ...and in source form at master branch of git://anonscm.debian.org/git/printing/ghostscript.git . Tested that binary packages work alone - but need test-building against reverse dependencies. Help doing that is much appreciated! Plan forward 1a) Release 9.06 to unstable 1b) Prepare 9.14 2) Release 9.10 to unstable when 9.06 is in testing 3) Release 9.14 to experimental for ftpmaster approval of new name 4) Release 9.14 to unstable when approved and 9.06/9.10 is in testing Steps 1) and 3) can be started in paralled, and step 2) skipped if ready before 9.06 is in testing. Help is needed to get 9.14 into shape: rip out the newly introduced base/gsioram.c and base/ramfs.c, patch remaining code as needed, and test that functions related to that ramfs routines still work. Plan is - as suggested by upstream in above chat - to rip out the new ramfs code, and then possibly apply patches to make it work again. Help is alse needed to test reverse dependencies of 9.06, 9.10 and (when ready) 9.14. @Odyx: As agreed, please go ahead with testing 9.06 and when believed working start coordinate the library transition with the release team. Let's use this bugreport to coordinate and update status of that. On 2014-04-10 10:50:36 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Ghostscript 9.07 and newer use the AGPL. I assume that would be fine for most uses but it's possible some rdeps would need to be updated to provide a download link so it's probably worth a NEWS.Debian entry. If you provide a download link, please make sure you provide a signature / signature link or reliable hash as well for security reasons. I am new to juggling with that. Can you perhaps provide a patch? Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
Hi, On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:13:09AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Thomas Kempf (2013-09-19 08:45:37) Package: ghostscript Version: 9.05~dfsg-6.3 Severity: wishlist Upstream released Version 9.10 with significant improvements Packaged has been prepared since some time - awaits newer libcms2, tracked in bug#701993. Any chance of getting a newer ghostscript now? I updated lcms2 because I wanted a newer ghostscript :) Thanks Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
Thomas Weber wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:13:09AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Thomas Kempf (2013-09-19 08:45:37) Upstream released Version 9.10 with significant improvements Packaged has been prepared since some time - awaits newer libcms2, tracked in bug#701993. Any chance of getting a newer ghostscript now? I updated lcms2 because I wanted a newer ghostscript :) Neat, thanks. Ghostscript 9.07 and newer use the AGPL. I assume that would be fine for most uses but it's possible some rdeps would need to be updated to provide a download link so it's probably worth a NEWS.Debian entry. Regards, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
Package: ghostscript Version: 9.05~dfsg-6.3 Severity: wishlist Upstream released Version 9.10 with significant improvements -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.1 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: powerpc (ppc64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8@euro, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8@euro (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages ghostscript depends on: ii debconf [de 1.5.49 Debian configuration management sy ii debianutils 4.3.2Miscellaneous utilities specific t ii gsfonts 1:8.11+urwcyr1.0.7~pre44-4.2 Fonts for the Ghostscript interpre ii libc6 2.13-38 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib ii libgs9 9.05~dfsg-6.3interpreter for the PostScript lan ghostscript recommends no packages. Versions of packages ghostscript suggests: pn ghostscript-cups none (no description available) pn ghostscript-x none (no description available) pn hpijs none (no description available) -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
I have already packaged GS 9.10 for Ubuntu, so it only needs to get back-synced to Debian. Till -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#723719: ghostscript: New Upstream Version 9.10 available
block 723719 by 701993 thanks Quoting Thomas Kempf (2013-09-19 08:45:37) Package: ghostscript Version: 9.05~dfsg-6.3 Severity: wishlist Upstream released Version 9.10 with significant improvements Packaged has been prepared since some time - awaits newer libcms2, tracked in bug#701993. Thanks for reporting, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
