Bug#187275: ITP: swftools -- collection of SWF manipulation and generation tools
Package: wnpp Followup-For: Bug #187275 Owner: Simo Kauppi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: swftools Version : 0.7.0 Upstream Author : Matthias Kramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others * URL : http://www.swftools.org/ * License : GPL Description : Collection of utilities for SWF file manipulation/creation SWF Tools is a collection of SWF (Flash) manipulation and creation utilities. This version of swftools is compiled without the L.A.M.E support to comply with the DFSG. This package includes: pdf2swf, jpeg2swf, png2swf, gif2swf,font2swf, swfcombine, swfextract, swfdump, swfstrings, swfbbox and swfc. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.14 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packaging swftools for Debian
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 03:21:41PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 10:36:38AM +0200, Simo Kauppi wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 08:56:29AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 09:24:25AM +0200, Simo Kauppi wrote: > > > Did you notice there something else than the L.A.M.E issue. Lame can > > be disabled at build time, so I guess that wouldn't prevent > > packaging it (and maybe naming the Debian package > > 'swftools-nolame'). > > No, you have to _remove_ the offending code. Not only "disable it at > build-time", but not ship it at all, also not in the > source. Distributing infringing source code, not only infringing > binaries, is an infringement to the patent. (The right mailing list > for discussing this particular point is debian-legal@lists.debian.org) Sorry for being a little vague. What I meant was that it uses liblame library by default and that dependency can be disabled at build time. My understanding is that there is no offending code in the swftools itself (at least I haven't noticed any, but I have to double check :) So, by disabling lame, it compiles and runs without users needing to install any non-free software (the liblame library). The only drawback is, that two of its binaries, avi2swf and wav2swf, cannot be used. Since it has many other useful tools, I would like to see a Debian package from it anyway. > >> You may want to do it yourself; see > >> http://www.debian.org/devel/join/ > > > I will :) If not for anything else, I'll package it just for my own > > use. > > Please consider contributing it to the "common pot"; you get a fairly > complete system from the common pot, if you are able to incrementally > make the system better and "give back", it will be > appreciated. (That's a very personal position of mine and no official > line of Debian.) I definitely want to give something back to the community :) after many years of "just" using Debian. I have already read a lot of documentation about becoming a new maintainer and my plan is to make the swftools-nolame package so, that I disable lame and modify the configuration so that wav2swf and avi2swf are not built. BTW: This is probably a stupid question (and probably belongs to the debian-legal), but how does one remove the offending code from the original source? I mean, I understood from the Debian Policy, that files must not deleted. So, does one just delete the code and leave an empty file? But in that case, doesn't the code still show up in the diff file? > -- > Lionel Simo -- :r ~/.signature signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packaging swftools for Debian
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 08:56:29AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 09:24:25AM +0200, Simo Kauppi wrote: > > > I was wondering, if anybody has been working on getting swftools > > (http://www.swftools.org/) into Debian? > > Apparently, not recently. > > > There seems to be an old RFP > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=187275 which has > > been closed because of inactivity. Does anybody know what is the > > status with that? > > It has been reopened by Vedran Fura?? on 18 Sep 2005. Ah, so it is, I missed that :) > > Are there any obvious reasons why swftools can't/shouldn't be > > packaged for Debian? > > Nobody has done it, that's the main reason. The RFP/ITP log says it > contains patent-encumbered code; one would have to remove it before > uploading to Debian. Did you notice there something else than the L.A.M.E issue. Lame can be disabled at build time, so I guess that wouldn't prevent packaging it (and maybe naming the Debian package 'swftools-nolame'). > You may want to do it yourself; see http://www.debian.org/devel/join/ I will :) If not for anything else, I'll package it just for my own use. > If you just want to stay up-to-date on what happens with it, you can > subscribe to the RFP "bug"; send mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" . > > -- > Lionel Thanks, Simo -- :r ~/.signature signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Packaging swftools for Debian
Hi, I just joined the list, so I'm sorry if this a FAQ or has been recently discussed. I was wondering, if anybody has been working on getting swftools (http://www.swftools.org/) into Debian? There seems to be an old RFP http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=187275 which has been closed because of inactivity. Does anybody know what is the status with that? Are there any obvious reasons why swftools can't/shouldn't be packaged for Debian? Simo -- :r ~/.signature signature.asc Description: Digital signature
