Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

Ok, I added description about generation of files in README.source file. 
New package is uploaded on mentors.debian.net

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi 
 
  On Sun, 19 Jun, 2016 at 11:32, Pali Rohár wrote:   
PINGPong.fix what mentors complains about (license)And remove moreinfo tag 
https://mentors.debian.net/package/stormlib-listfiles
Gianfranco

On Tuesday 24 May 2016 10:51:59 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hi! Now after month, any news regarding this package?
> 
> On Wednesday 27 April 2016 12:53:06 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > Hi Pali and mentors,
> > 
> > (redirecting the question to -mentors, because I don't have a
> > strong opinion on this)
> > 
> > >Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
> > >generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into
> > >public domain. People names (or nick names) are already included
> > >in copyright file. That is all what I know and cannot do more. If
> > >there are or there are not law problems it is probably question
> > >for other people...
> > 
> > there should be a verbatim copy of the license included in the
> > upstream tarball
> > 
> > look e.g. to
> > 
> > https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
> > License II and III sections
> > 
> > 
> > so, either you have to document how the license is obtained, or how
> > to reproduce the files generation.
> > 
> > I know licenses are a waste of time for somebody (they were for me
> > when I started my contributions in Debian :p )...
> > but they are the best way to get your package rejected by
> > ftpmasters!
> > 
> > So, this point is really a showstopper for the inclusion in Debian
> > of the tool (BTW if you want to ask ftpmasters about their opinion
> > let me know their answer).
> > 
> > I would like to avoid uploading and get a reject, but I would
> > consider an upload with a ping to ftpmasters about this issue.
> > 
> > cheers,
> > 
> > Gianfranco
> > 
> > 
> > Il Martedì 26 Aprile 2016 23:07, Pali Rohár 
> > ha scritto:
> > 
> > On Thursday 21 April 2016 10:16:29 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 19 April 2016 08:36:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > >There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no
> > > > >more license texts... What to write into paragraph then??
> > > > 
> > > > everything is a license, and public domain is a license too.
> > > > https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/
> > > > page _0
> > > > 
> > > > G.
> > > 
> > > Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
> > > generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into
> > > public domain. People names (or nick names) are already included
> > > in copyright file. That is all what I know and cannot do more.
> > > If there are or there are not law problems it is probably
> > > question for other people...
> > 
> > Gianfranco, what else needs to be done? I think I done everything
> > what I was able to do...

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com  

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

PING!

On Tuesday 24 May 2016 10:51:59 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hi! Now after month, any news regarding this package?
> 
> On Wednesday 27 April 2016 12:53:06 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > Hi Pali and mentors,
> > 
> > (redirecting the question to -mentors, because I don't have a
> > strong opinion on this)
> > 
> > >Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
> > >generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into
> > >public domain. People names (or nick names) are already included
> > >in copyright file. That is all what I know and cannot do more. If
> > >there are or there are not law problems it is probably question
> > >for other people...
> > 
> > there should be a verbatim copy of the license included in the
> > upstream tarball
> > 
> > look e.g. to
> > 
> > https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
> > License II and III sections
> > 
> > 
> > so, either you have to document how the license is obtained, or how
> > to reproduce the files generation.
> > 
> > I know licenses are a waste of time for somebody (they were for me
> > when I started my contributions in Debian :p )...
> > but they are the best way to get your package rejected by
> > ftpmasters!
> > 
> > So, this point is really a showstopper for the inclusion in Debian
> > of the tool (BTW if you want to ask ftpmasters about their opinion
> > let me know their answer).
> > 
> > I would like to avoid uploading and get a reject, but I would
> > consider an upload with a ping to ftpmasters about this issue.
> > 
> > cheers,
> > 
> > Gianfranco
> > 
> > 
> > Il Martedì 26 Aprile 2016 23:07, Pali Rohár 
> > ha scritto:
> > 
> > On Thursday 21 April 2016 10:16:29 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 19 April 2016 08:36:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > >There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no
> > > > >more license texts... What to write into paragraph then??
> > > > 
> > > > everything is a license, and public domain is a license too.
> > > > https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/
> > > > page _0
> > > > 
> > > > G.
> > > 
> > > Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
> > > generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into
> > > public domain. People names (or nick names) are already included
> > > in copyright file. That is all what I know and cannot do more.
> > > If there are or there are not law problems it is probably
> > > question for other people...
> > 
> > Gianfranco, what else needs to be done? I think I done everything
> > what I was able to do...

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: tags -1 moreinfo

On Tue, 24 May 2016 10:51:59 +0200 Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= 
 wrote:
> Hi! Now after month, any news regarding this package?

https://mentors.debian.net/package/stormlib-listfiles
the news is that you have two lintian warnings.
fix them and remove the moreinfo tag.

I can consider pinging ftpmasters about that, but the license text needs to be 
added to the copyright file

g.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

Hi! Now after month, any news regarding this package?

On Wednesday 27 April 2016 12:53:06 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi Pali and mentors,
> 
> (redirecting the question to -mentors, because I don't have a strong opinion 
> on this)
> 
> 
> >Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
> >generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into public
> >domain. People names (or nick names) are already included in copyright
> >file. That is all what I know and cannot do more. If there are or there
> >are not law problems it is probably question for other people...
> 
> there should be a verbatim copy of the license included in the upstream 
> tarball
> 
> look e.g. to 
> 
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
> License II and III sections
> 
> 
> so, either you have to document how the license is obtained, or how to 
> reproduce the files
> generation.
> 
> I know licenses are a waste of time for somebody (they were for me when I 
> started
> my contributions in Debian :p )...
> but they are the best way to get your package rejected by ftpmasters!
> 
> So, this point is really a showstopper for the inclusion in Debian of the tool
> (BTW if you want to ask ftpmasters about their opinion let me know their 
> answer).
> 
> I would like to avoid uploading and get a reject, but I would consider an
> upload with a ping to ftpmasters about this issue.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Gianfranco
> 
> 
> Il Martedì 26 Aprile 2016 23:07, Pali Rohár  ha scritto:
> On Thursday 21 April 2016 10:16:29 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 April 2016 08:36:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > >There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no
> > > >more license texts... What to write into paragraph then??
> > > 
> > > everything is a license, and public domain is a license too.
> > > https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/page
> > > _0
> > > 
> > > G.
> > 
> > Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
> > generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into public
> > domain. People names (or nick names) are already included in
> > copyright file. That is all what I know and cannot do more. If there
> > are or there are not law problems it is probably question for other
> > people...
> 
> Gianfranco, what else needs to be done? I think I done everything what I 
> was able to do...
> 
> 

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi Pali and mentors,

(redirecting the question to -mentors, because I don't have a strong opinion on 
this)


>Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
>generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into public
>domain. People names (or nick names) are already included in copyright
>file. That is all what I know and cannot do more. If there are or there
>are not law problems it is probably question for other people...

there should be a verbatim copy of the license included in the upstream tarball

look e.g. to 

https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
License II and III sections


so, either you have to document how the license is obtained, or how to 
reproduce the files
generation.

I know licenses are a waste of time for somebody (they were for me when I 
started
my contributions in Debian :p )...
but they are the best way to get your package rejected by ftpmasters!

So, this point is really a showstopper for the inclusion in Debian of the tool
(BTW if you want to ask ftpmasters about their opinion let me know their 
answer).

I would like to avoid uploading and get a reject, but I would consider an
upload with a ping to ftpmasters about this issue.

cheers,

Gianfranco


Il Martedì 26 Aprile 2016 23:07, Pali Rohár  ha scritto:
On Thursday 21 April 2016 10:16:29 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 April 2016 08:36:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > >There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no
> > >more license texts... What to write into paragraph then??
> > 
> > everything is a license, and public domain is a license too.
> > https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/page
> > _0
> > 
> > G.
> 
> Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
> generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into public
> domain. People names (or nick names) are already included in
> copyright file. That is all what I know and cannot do more. If there
> are or there are not law problems it is probably question for other
> people...

Gianfranco, what else needs to be done? I think I done everything what I 
was able to do...


-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

On Tuesday 19 April 2016 08:36:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> >There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no more
> >license texts... What to write into paragraph then??
> 
> 
> everything is a license, and public domain is a license too.
> https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/page_0
> 
> G.

Looks like we do not have exact license text as those file "were
generated" by brute-force methods by more people and put into public
domain. People names (or nick names) are already included in copyright
file. That is all what I know and cannot do more. If there are or there
are not law problems it is probably question for other people...

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi,


>There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no more
>license texts... What to write into paragraph then??


everything is a license, and public domain is a license too.
https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/page_0

G.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

On Monday 18 April 2016 22:32:14 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Still a copyright issue
> 
> W missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright
> public-domain (paragraph at line 17)

There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no more
license texts... What to write into paragraph then??

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Still a copyright issue

W missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright
public-domain (paragraph at line 17)


G.


Il Lunedì 18 Aprile 2016 21:33, Pali Rohár  ha scritto:
On Monday 18 April 2016 19:09:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

> Hi
> 
> >> 0.0.0~20150420
> >
> >Ok, I change it to that string.
> 
> as said by Jakub, 0~20150420 is already fine

I did not get any email from Jakub.

Anyway, now I updated stormlib-listfiles package on mentors.debian.net.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

On Monday 18 April 2016 19:09:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi
> 
> >> 0.0.0~20150420
> >
> >Ok, I change it to that string.
> 
> as said by Jakub, 0~20150420 is already fine

I did not get any email from Jakub.

Anyway, now I updated stormlib-listfiles package on mentors.debian.net.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi

>> 0.0.0~20150420
>
>Ok, I change it to that string.


as said by Jakub, 0~20150420 is already fine
>I do not care about versioning scheme. If there is some convention I 
>will use it...


wonderful
>> or ask them to put some sort of versioning,
>
>I can ask, but I do not expect any change...


:(
>> otherwise, how could them notify users about new releases?
>
>Package content (or hash) was changed. There is not other way. Has 
>debian/watch support for checking hash or Last-Modified header?


this seems tricky, and I don't think it is supported.


g.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

On Monday 18 April 2016 18:48:26 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> mmm maybe by doing something lie:
> 0.0.0~20150420

Ok, I change it to that string.

I do not care about versioning scheme. If there is some convention I 
will use it...

> or ask them to put some sort of versioning,

I can ask, but I do not expect any change...

> otherwise, how could them notify users about new releases?

Package content (or hash) was changed. There is not other way. Has 
debian/watch support for checking hash or Last-Modified header?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Jakub Wilk]

* Gianfranco Costamagna , 2016-04-18, 16:48:

mmm maybe by doing something lie:
0.0.0~20150420


Surely just one leading zero is enough...

--
Jakub Wilk

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

mmm maybe by doing something lie:
0.0.0~20150420

or ask them to put some sort of versioning, otherwise, how could
them notify users about new releases?




g.


Il Lunedì 18 Aprile 2016 18:36, Pali Rohár  ha scritto:
And I have another question, how to version this package? Upstream does 
not have any versioning, just drop "last" updated package to web. But it 
provides HTTP "Last-Modified:" header when GETting or HEADing file. And 
this date (separated by hyphen) I used for Debian version. Is that OK, 
or is there other convention?


-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

And I have another question, how to version this package? Upstream does 
not have any versioning, just drop "last" updated package to web. But it 
provides HTTP "Last-Modified:" header when GETting or HEADing file. And 
this date (separated by hyphen) I used for Debian version. Is that OK, 
or is there other convention?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

(also stormlib needs to have optional priority BTW)


>

>Files are under public domain. Mark then debian files under public 
>domain too?


yes, if you are fine with that license.
it is up to you, not to me :)

>I'm not lawyer and really do not know how to check trademark violation 
>or similar things. I have never did it for any (software) project/files, 
>I have no idea how you imagine such review... Also different countries 
>have (probably) different laws about copyright, trademark, ... and so in 
>different countries such thing can have different results.
>
>What I can say... those text files which are in package contains file 
>names for building reverse hash table (mapping from hash to file name).
>
>Files were generated by brute-force, trying to find input (file name) 
>which maps to generated hash. So I think that such action does not 
>violate trademarks... But if you are interested for details, then read:
>
>http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html

I think the problem is on using the "names", not on the content itself.

Probably I'll upload this package on new queue (after you fix
the remaining issues), and leave a note on irc
to ftpmasters, asking to check that part :)

thanks

G.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

On Monday 18 April 2016 17:53:32 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi
> 
> >I have no opinion about section. So change it to optional?
> 
> I think you should

Ok, I will change it.

> >So what do you suggest? What is common in this such case?
> 
> use for debian packaging the same upstream license.

Files are under public domain. Mark then debian files under public 
domain too?

> >I'm not lawyer.
> 
> well, the package is simple, with just a bunch of files, they won't
> loose too much time in reviewing it :)

I'm not lawyer and really do not know how to check trademark violation 
or similar things. I have never did it for any (software) project/files, 
I have no idea how you imagine such review... Also different countries 
have (probably) different laws about copyright, trademark, ... and so in 
different countries such thing can have different results.

What I can say... those text files which are in package contains file 
names for building reverse hash table (mapping from hash to file name).

Files were generated by brute-force, trying to find input (file name) 
which maps to generated hash. So I think that such action does not 
violate trademarks... But if you are interested for details, then read:
http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi

>I have no opinion about section. So change it to optional?


I think you should
>Because this package contains just text files, needed to build reverse
>hash table with file names for old mpq archives. There is no need to
>depend on something.


ok
>But package smpq depends on this package. It uses stormlib read those
>files and send content to smpq library for file name support.


ok

>Because it is not needed. See http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html>all WOW 
>internal list files are complete.


ok
>So what do you suggest? What is common in this such case?


use for debian packaging the same upstream license.
>I'm not lawyer.


well, the package is simple, with just a bunch of files, they won't loose
too much time in reviewing it :)

cheers,

G.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

On Friday 15 April 2016 16:29:24 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> some questisons:
> std-version
> section extra? maybe optional?

I have no opinion about section. So change it to optional?

> why this package is not depending on anything else?

Because this package contains just text files, needed to build reverse
hash table with file names for old mpq archives. There is no need to
depend on something.

But package smpq depends on this package. It uses stormlib read those
files and send content to smpq library for file name support.

> why exclude WOW?

Because it is not needed. See http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html
all WOW internal list files are complete.

> license of debian packaging is stricter than the upstream one,
> you might not be able to forward patches without relicensing.

So what do you suggest? What is common in this such case?

> are you sure there isn't any trademark violations there?

I'm not lawyer.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo


some questisons:
std-version
section extra? maybe optional?
why this package is not depending on anything else?
why exclude WOW?

license of debian packaging is stricter than the upstream one,
you might not be able to forward patches without relicensing.

are you sure there isn't any trademark violations there?

cheers,

G.


Il Lunedì 28 Marzo 2016 2:03, Pali Rohár  ha scritto:
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "stormlib-listfiles"

* Package name: stormlib-listfiles
   Version : 2015-04-20-1
   Upstream Author : Ladislav Zezula 
* URL : http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html
* License : public-domain
   Section : libs

It builds those binary packages:

  libstorm-listfiles - Library for accessing the MPQ archives (listfiles)

To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

http://mentors.debian.net/package/stormlib-listfiles


Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stormlib-listfiles/stormlib-listfiles_2015-04-20-1.dsc

More information about stormlib-listfiles can be obtained from 
http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html.

Changes since the last upload:

  * Initial release (Closes: #819380)


Regards,
Pali Rohár

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

[Pali Rohár]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "stormlib-listfiles"

 * Package name: stormlib-listfiles
   Version : 2015-04-20-1
   Upstream Author : Ladislav Zezula 
 * URL : http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html
 * License : public-domain
   Section : libs

It builds those binary packages:

  libstorm-listfiles - Library for accessing the MPQ archives (listfiles)

To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

http://mentors.debian.net/package/stormlib-listfiles


Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stormlib-listfiles/stormlib-listfiles_2015-04-20-1.dsc

More information about stormlib-listfiles can be obtained from 
http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html.

Changes since the last upload:

  * Initial release (Closes: #819380)


Regards,
 Pali Rohár


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.