How to deliver an binary file
Hi there, i packaged typo3-src and had to add an source-file for a font that is used inside typo3. The file is a gzipped .sfd file and currently i handle this by repackaging the orig.tar.gz (my former sponsor wanted this). But my new sponsor thinks this should be added during package build. But this way the 88kb binary file would be in the diff.gz... What is the prefered way to handle this ? PS: i talked to upstream some time ago and they do not want to add this into their releases. So i have to handle this on my own. -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/key.asc Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to deliver an binary file
OoO Pendant le temps de midi du dimanche 19 août 2007, vers 12:06, Christian Welzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait: i packaged typo3-src and had to add an source-file for a font that is used inside typo3. The file is a gzipped .sfd file and currently i handle this by repackaging the orig.tar.gz (my former sponsor wanted this). But my new sponsor thinks this should be added during package build. But this way the 88kb binary file would be in the diff.gz... What is the prefered way to handle this ? PS: i talked to upstream some time ago and they do not want to add this into their releases. So i have to handle this on my own. To be able to include it in diff.gz, you need to encode it. You can use uudecode to decode it. Therefore, you need to source depend on sharutils. -- I WILL NOT CUT CORNERS -+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 7F11 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to deliver an binary file
Vincent Bernat wrote: OoO Pendant le temps de midi du dimanche 19 août 2007, vers 12:06, Christian Welzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait: i packaged typo3-src and had to add an source-file for a font that is used inside typo3. The file is a gzipped .sfd file and currently i handle this by repackaging the orig.tar.gz (my former sponsor wanted this). But my new sponsor thinks this should be added during package build. But this way the 88kb binary file would be in the diff.gz... What is the prefered way to handle this ? PS: i talked to upstream some time ago and they do not want to add this into their releases. So i have to handle this on my own. To be able to include it in diff.gz, you need to encode it. You can use uudecode to decode it. Therefore, you need to source depend on sharutils. -- I WILL NOT CUT CORNERS -+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 7F11 You don't need sharutils, you can use perl's pack function See the footnote in the Developer's Reference http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/footnotes.en.html#f7 -- Julian Andres Klode IRC Nickname: juliank (Debian/OFTC + Freenode, GimpNet) Fellow of FSFE: https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/jak (No. 1049) Debian Wiki:http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode Ubuntu Wiki:http://wiki.ubuntu.com/JulianAndresKlode In Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~juliank My packages: http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Languages: German, English, [bit French] signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: How to deliver an binary file
Am Sonntag, 19. August 2007 12:10 schrieb Vincent Bernat: To be able to include it in diff.gz, you need to encode it. You can use But is it such a good idea to put a 120kb encoded file into the diff? I believe i read somewhere this is not a good practise... -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/key.asc Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: pyxplot
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package pyxplot. * Package name: pyxplot Version : 0.6.3.1-2 Upstream Author : Dominic Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://pyxplot.org.uk/ * License : GPL (version 2 or later) Section : math It builds one binary package: pyxplot - Command-line plotting package producing publication-quality output Chances in this version: * Rename debian/README to debian/README.Debian. * Add TODO File. * Tighten strictness of dependency on python-pyx (as advised by upstream) since PyX's API changes break PyXPlot with every new release. * Build the documentation in HTML format; also build-depend on python-plastex. * Now that the HTML documentation is built, there is no longer any need to prevent its removal during clean; therefore express the remaining changes to doc/Makefile in the form of 200_build-docs-verbose.patch. * Add a debian/watch file. The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyxplot - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyxplot/pyxplot_0.6.3.1-2.dsc Regards, -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How to deliver an binary file
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 12:26:21PM +0200, Christian Welzel wrote: Am Sonntag, 19. August 2007 12:10 schrieb Vincent Bernat: To be able to include it in diff.gz, you need to encode it. You can use But is it such a good idea to put a 120kb encoded file into the diff? I believe i read somewhere this is not a good practise... The encoded filesize will be not less than 4/3 larger anyway. Were you thinking of you mustn't include in the repacked orig.tar.gz any file not distributed upstream or modified by you? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to deliver an binary file
Christian Welzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i packaged typo3-src and had to add an source-file for a font that is used inside typo3. The file is a gzipped .sfd file and currently i handle this by repackaging the orig.tar.gz (my former sponsor wanted this). Is the .sfd file the source form of the font -- that is, is that file the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, as the GPL would say? (I ask because I don't know what a .sfd file is.) If not, how are you satisfying the DFSG need for distributing the modifiable source of the work? But my new sponsor thinks this should be added during package build. But this way the 88kb binary file would be in the diff.gz... What is the prefered way to handle this ? I would think the best way would be to encourage the upstream to distribute the source form of the work in the source tarball. PS: i talked to upstream some time ago and they do not want to add this into their releases. So i have to handle this on my own. What, then, does upstream consider the source form of the work? Is their distributed source form something that would be considered free software? -- \ If [a technology company] has confidence in their future | `\ ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting | _o__) their past innovations really should decline. —Gary Barnett | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to deliver an binary file
Am Sonntag, 19. August 2007 13:23 schrieb Ben Finney: Is the .sfd file the source form of the font -- that is, is that file the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, as the GPL would say? (I ask because I don't know what a .sfd file is.) sfd is a format that can be read by fontforge (former pfaedit) and is the source of this font (at least the only source format i ever found). I would think the best way would be to encourage the upstream to distribute the source form of the work in the source tarball. I tryed this. I'll try it further. What, then, does upstream consider the source form of the work? Is their distributed source form something that would be considered free software? I think they also believe the above .sfd as the source of the font but the do not want to redistribute it, because they think nobody ever wants this file and it therefor would waste space in the tarball. -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/key.asc Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: multiget
On 8/16/07, Julian Andres Klode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 15.08.2007, 23:50 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package multiget. * Package name: multiget Version : 1.1.4-1 Upstream Author : liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://multiget.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Section : net It builds these binary packages: multiget - graphical download manager The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 388427 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget/multiget_1.1.4-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards LI Daobing I am no DD, which means I can not upload it, but I took a look at the package. few things can be improved: - Remove changelog.txt from debian/docs, you install it with dh_installchangelogs - Delete the lines you commented out, this makes it easier to read. - Use Priority: optional Hello, an updated version in mentors.debian.net (fix all above issues), need I repost the RFS? -- LI Daobing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gviterm
On 8/18/07, Li Daobing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Patrick Winnertz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am Mittwoch, 15. August 2007 17:05:34 schrieb LI Daobing: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gviterm. * Package name: gviterm Version : 0.1+r10-1 Upstream Author : yetist [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL :http://code.google.com/p/gviterm/ * License : GPL Section : editors It builds these binary packages: gviterm- gvim + terminal The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 438128 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL:http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gviterm - Source repository: deb-srchttp://mentors.debian.net/debianunstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gviterm/gviterm_0.1+r10-1.d sc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. I tried to compile and exec this package on my PC and got this: ... 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_again' 'status_eof' It seriously hangs and doesn't start up. So please help upstream to fix this hugh error before getting it into debian :) Hello, I can't reproduce this bug, could you provide more information on this issue, thanks. -- LI Daobing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: chmsee (updated package)
On 8/18/07, Li Daobing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Aug 17, 2:40 pm Subject: RFS: chmsee (updated package) To: linux.debian.devel.mentors On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:08:51PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: Dear mentors, Hello Li... The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL:http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/chmsee - Source repository: deb-srchttp://mentors.debian.net/debianunstable main contrib non-free - dgethttp://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/chmsee/chmsee_1.0.0-1.dsc debian/changelog: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/debian/chmsee$ diff -Naur old/chmsee-1.0.0~beta2/debian new/chmsee-1.0.0/debian | wc -l 162 You have changed really many lines in the debian/ directory but you write a changelog of 3 lines in total, you didn't even mention the changes on the build-depends and depends which seems to be quite important for me. debian/copyright: Please reformat this file, so that you everywhere use the same amount of whitespaces etc. That's just for the eye but I think it's important to have nice copyright files... Hi, a new upload to mentors, fix all above issues, need I repost the RFS? -- LI Daobing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: missing file in php-net-ipv4 in official package
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 05:14:45PM +0200, Gregory Colpart wrote: All together, now that I did about 10 pear extension Debian packages or so, I am wondering if it was possible to create a script that would parse the package.xml file to auto generate the debian/rules file the correct way. An automated system would have many advantages. Some that come to my mind: make Debian packages very fast, reduce the possibility to make errors, make it possible to have updates very fast at the same time as the one from pear.php.net, ... Also, the package.xml has all the needed information: upstream author, license, and list of files and where to set them up. As it's an XML file, it's quite easy to parse. Of course, this doesn't mean that the resulting Debian folder shouldn't be check for consistency. This is the role of both the maintainer, and the sponsor. If anybody is interested about this idea and want to work with me doing it, let me know. One of the subjects that I'd like to discuss is what tool to use to parse the file. Maybe php itself as it can be called from shell? Parsing and displaying informations are done with: $ pear info package.xml I don't think it's very useful to do more and generate debian/control file because it could give bad habits for the maintainer: debian/control must have ever manual checks. Complementary information, there is such a script in dh-make-php package: /usr/share/dh-make-php/phppkginfo Regards, -- Gregory Colpart [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG:1024D/C1027A0E Evolix - Informatique et Logiciels Libres http://www.evolix.fr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: multiget
Am Sonntag, den 19.08.2007, 22:55 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: On 8/16/07, Julian Andres Klode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 15.08.2007, 23:50 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package multiget. * Package name: multiget Version : 1.1.4-1 Upstream Author : liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://multiget.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Section : net It builds these binary packages: multiget - graphical download manager The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 388427 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget/multiget_1.1.4-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards LI Daobing I am no DD, which means I can not upload it, but I took a look at the package. few things can be improved: - Remove changelog.txt from debian/docs, you install it with dh_installchangelogs - Delete the lines you commented out, this makes it easier to read. - Use Priority: optional Hello, an updated version in mentors.debian.net (fix all above issues), need I repost the RFS? Simply answer to this message with Re: RFS: multiget (still need sponsor) or similar. I attached a diff with a few improvements and a man page. (debdiff.diff.gz) If you want to, you can also add me to Uploaders. (And add a changelog entry, both in me-as-uploader.diff.gz) Also update the timestamp in the next upload. I hope you find a sponsor soon. -- Julian Andres Klode IRC Nickname: juliank (Debian/OFTC + Freenode, GimpNet) Fellow of FSFE: https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/jak (No. 1049) Debian Wiki:http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode Ubuntu Wiki:http://wiki.ubuntu.com/JulianAndresKlode In Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~juliank My packages: http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Languages: German, English, [bit French] debdiff.diff.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data me-as-uploader.diff.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
License issues with md5deep
Hi all! These days I am trying to package md5deep for Debian[1]. Although it is my first compiled package (the other was in Python), I'm not having any technical problem. I have just a bunch of question for you about the license. I don't know if you should write to debian-legal, or you can help me directly. In most (all those I won't discuss in this email) of the sources file there is a notice like this: /* MD5DEEP - algorithms.h * * By Jesse Kornblum * * This is a work of the US Government. In accordance with 17 USC 105, * copyright protection is not available for any work of the US Government. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * */ As far as I know, this means that I can safely Debianize this program, simply writing in debian/copyright that it is dropped to the public domain. Anyway, some files are different headings. md5.c reports: /* * This code implements the MD5 message-digest algorithm. * The algorithm was written by Ron Rivest. This code was * written by Colin Plumb in 1993, our understanding is * that no copyright is claimed and that * this code is in the public domain. * * Equivalent code is available from RSA Data Security, Inc. * This code has been tested against that, and is * functionally equivalent, * * To compute the message digest of a chunk of bytes, declare an * MD5Context structure, pass it to MD5Init, call MD5Update as * needed on buffers full of bytes, and then call MD5Final, which * will fill a supplied 16-byte array with the digest. */ This writing talks about our understanding. Can I trust this understanding and mark also this file as left in the public domain in debian/copyright? sha256.c has: /* * FIPS-180-2 compliant SHA-256 implementation * written by Christophe Devine * * This code has been distributed as PUBLIC DOMAIN. * * Although normally licensed under the GPL on the author's web site, * he has given me permission to distribute it as public domain as * part of md5deep. THANK YOU! Software authors are encouraged to * use the GPL'ed version of this code available at: * http://www.cr0.net:8040/code/crypto/sha256/ whenever possible. */ Is it correct to write in debian/copyright that also this file is in the public domain? tiger.c looks like a bit more difficult: /* MD5DEEP - tiger.c * * By Jesse Kornblum * *SPECIAL COPYRIGHT NOTICE FOR THIS FILE * (and this file only) * * This code was adapted from GnuPG and is licensed under the * GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; * either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version. * * Some functions have been changed or removed from the GnuPG version. * See comments for details. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * */ This file is surely GPL and not in the public domain. Isn't illegal to link GPL object code with other non-GPL object code and don't distribute it as GPL? In other words, because of only this GPL file, all the package should be GPL licensed, isn't it? Last, but not least, whirpool.c and whirpool.h don't have any copyright notice at all. The README says: This program is a work of the US Government. In accordance with 17 USC 105, copyright protection is not available for any work of the US Government. Lawyer to English translation: This program is PUBLIC DOMAIN. Not only is this program not copyrighted, but IT CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED BY ANYBODY AT ANY TIME UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. In Debianizinig this program, I own a piece of copyright on the final work. Isn't this in contrast with the Lawyer to English clause? Sorry for writing this long and meticulous email, but this is my second package and I'm not expert yet. I wouldn't do anything illegal! Can you answer me, or should I write to debian-legal? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=438753 -- Giovanni Mascellani [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pisa, Italy Web: http://giomasce.altervista.org SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x5F1FBF70 (FP: 1EB6 3D43 E201 4DDF 67BD 003F FCB0 BB5C 5F1F BF70) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: License issues with md5deep
Giovanni Mascellani wrote: Hi all! Hi These days I am trying to package md5deep for Debian[1]. Although it is my first compiled package (the other was in Python), I'm not having any technical problem. I have just a bunch of question for you about the license. I don't know if you should write to debian-legal, or you can help me directly. debian-legal is a better place. This file is surely GPL and not in the public domain. Isn't illegal to link GPL object code with other non-GPL object code and don't distribute it as GPL? In other words, because of only this GPL file, all the package should be GPL licensed, isn't it? I think, it's a GPL violation. The problem is that you cannot relicense the public domain parts under the GPL, because they can not be copyrighted. Last, but not least, whirpool.c and whirpool.h don't have any copyright notice at all. The README says: This program is a work of the US Government. In accordance with 17 USC 105, copyright protection is not available for any work of the US Government. Lawyer to English translation: This program is PUBLIC DOMAIN. Not only is this program not copyrighted, but IT CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED BY ANYBODY AT ANY TIME UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. In Debianizinig this program, I own a piece of copyright on the final work. Isn't this in contrast with the Lawyer to English clause? You can make your debian packaging public domain. Sorry for writing this long and meticulous email, but this is my second package and I'm not expert yet. I wouldn't do anything illegal! Can you answer me, or should I write to debian-legal? You should better write to debian-legal. -- Julian Andres Klode IRC Nickname: juliank (Debian/OFTC + Freenode, GimpNet) Fellow of FSFE: https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/jak (No. 1049) Debian Wiki:http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode Ubuntu Wiki:http://wiki.ubuntu.com/JulianAndresKlode In Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~juliank My packages: http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Languages: German, English, [bit French] signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: License issues with md5deep
Julian Andres Klode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Giovanni Mascellani wrote: This file is surely GPL and not in the public domain. Isn't illegal to link GPL object code with other non-GPL object code and don't distribute it as GPL? In other words, because of only this GPL file, all the package should be GPL licensed, isn't it? I think, it's a GPL violation. The problem is that you cannot relicense the public domain parts under the GPL, because they can not be copyrighted. No, not at all. The only requirement of the GPL is that the work as a whole be covered by the GPL, which means that you have to be able to create a combined derivative work licensed under the GPL. Since public domain puts no restrictions whatsoever on what you do with licenses, it's quite safe to combine GPL code with public domain code into one work, which as a whole is then covered by the GPL. The individual public domain pieces continue to be in the public domain if extracted and used separately. The README says: This program is a work of the US Government. In accordance with 17 USC 105, copyright protection is not available for any work of the US Government. Lawyer to English translation: This program is PUBLIC DOMAIN. Not only is this program not copyrighted, but IT CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED BY ANYBODY AT ANY TIME UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. This is sort of true and sort of not. That code itself is not covered by copyright, but any derivative work that you create from it is still covered by your copyright. And that's fine. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issues with md5deep
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 07:06:13PM +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote: Hi all! These days I am trying to package md5deep for Debian[1]. Although it is my first compiled package (the other was in Python), I'm not having any technical problem. I have just a bunch of question for you about the license. I don't know if you should write to debian-legal, or you can help me directly. In most (all those I won't discuss in this email) of the sources file there is a notice like this: /* MD5DEEP - algorithms.h * * By Jesse Kornblum * * This is a work of the US Government. In accordance with 17 USC 105, * copyright protection is not available for any work of the US Government. As far as I know, this means that I can safely Debianize this program, simply writing in debian/copyright that it is dropped to the public domain. Yes Anyway, some files are different headings. md5.c reports: /* * This code implements the MD5 message-digest algorithm. * The algorithm was written by Ron Rivest. This code was * written by Colin Plumb in 1993, our understanding is * that no copyright is claimed and that * this code is in the public domain. This writing talks about our understanding. Can I trust this understanding and mark also this file as left in the public domain in debian/copyright? I think there are probably many copies of this md5.c floating around. In fact Debian probably already has them. In fact I suspect that you can find one in in dpkg.. But try to retain the Upstream author for each file as well as copyright holder (if applicable) and license. sha256.c has: /* * FIPS-180-2 compliant SHA-256 implementation * written by Christophe Devine * * This code has been distributed as PUBLIC DOMAIN. * * Although normally licensed under the GPL on the author's web site, * he has given me permission to distribute it as public domain as * part of md5deep. THANK YOU! Software authors are encouraged to * use the GPL'ed version of this code available at: * http://www.cr0.net:8040/code/crypto/sha256/ whenever possible. */ Is it correct to write in debian/copyright that also this file is in the public domain? Yes. For this file also keep the GPL Preferred note. tiger.c looks like a bit more difficult: /* MD5DEEP - tiger.c * * By Jesse Kornblum * *SPECIAL COPYRIGHT NOTICE FOR THIS FILE * (and this file only) * * This code was adapted from GnuPG and is licensed under the * GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; * either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version. * * Some functions have been changed or removed from the GnuPG version. * See comments for details. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * */ This file is surely GPL and not in the public domain. Isn't illegal to link GPL object code with other non-GPL object code and don't distribute it as GPL? In other words, because of only this GPL file, all the package should be GPL licensed, isn't it? To repeat what Russ said: the majority of your souce package is PD. The resulting binary package (if it links with this file) must be GPL. You should say this in /copyright. In Debianizinig this program, I own a piece of copyright on the final work. Isn't this in contrast with the Lawyer to English clause? I think that the GPL doesn't put restrictions on makesystems. Or are you also modifying some code (nontrivially)? Even so obvious licenses choices for the Debian packaging are GPL and PD which allow you to distribute the binary package as gpl. Thanks, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: multiget
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 06:20:19PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: Am Sonntag, den 19.08.2007, 22:55 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: On 8/16/07, Julian Andres Klode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 15.08.2007, 23:50 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package multiget. * Package name: multiget Version : 1.1.4-1 Upstream Author : liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://multiget.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Section : net It builds these binary packages: multiget - graphical download manager The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 388427 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget/multiget_1.1.4-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards LI Daobing I am no DD, which means I can not upload it, but I took a look at the package. few things can be improved: - Remove changelog.txt from debian/docs, you install it with dh_installchangelogs - Delete the lines you commented out, this makes it easier to read. - Use Priority: optional Hello, an updated version in mentors.debian.net (fix all above issues), need I repost the RFS? Simply answer to this message with Re: RFS: multiget (still need sponsor) or similar. I attached a diff with a few improvements and a man page. (debdiff.diff.gz) --- multiget-1.1.4/debian/copyright +++ multiget-1.1.4/debian/copyright -Upstream Author: - -liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -Copyright: - -Copyright (C) 2006 liubin - License: +Copyright (C) 2006 liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't like this change. luibin isn't a license, and it loses the information about the original upstream author (which can differ from the copyright holder). Justin References [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/02/msg00371.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: multiget
Justin Pryzby wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 06:20:19PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: Am Sonntag, den 19.08.2007, 22:55 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: On 8/16/07, Julian Andres Klode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 15.08.2007, 23:50 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package multiget. * Package name: multiget Version : 1.1.4-1 Upstream Author : liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://multiget.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Section : net It builds these binary packages: multiget - graphical download manager The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 388427 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget/multiget_1.1.4-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards LI Daobing I am no DD, which means I can not upload it, but I took a look at the package. few things can be improved: - Remove changelog.txt from debian/docs, you install it with dh_installchangelogs - Delete the lines you commented out, this makes it easier to read. - Use Priority: optional Hello, an updated version in mentors.debian.net (fix all above issues), need I repost the RFS? Simply answer to this message with Re: RFS: multiget (still need sponsor) or similar. I attached a diff with a few improvements and a man page. (debdiff.diff.gz) --- multiget-1.1.4/debian/copyright +++ multiget-1.1.4/debian/copyright -Upstream Author: - -liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -Copyright: - -Copyright (C) 2006 liubin - License: +Copyright (C) 2006 liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't like this change. luibin isn't a license, and it loses the information about the original upstream author (which can differ from the copyright holder). Justin References [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/02/msg00371.html In the proposed format for copyright files [0], there would also be no different authors field. Merging Upstream Author and Copyright should be OK. [0] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat -- Julian Andres Klode IRC Nickname: juliank (Debian/OFTC + Freenode, GimpNet) Fellow of FSFE: https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/jak (No. 1049) Debian Wiki:http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode Ubuntu Wiki:http://wiki.ubuntu.com/JulianAndresKlode In Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~juliank My packages: http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Languages: German, English, [bit French] signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: How to deliver an binary file
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Christian Welzel wrote: I think they also believe the above .sfd as the source of the font but the do not want to redistribute it, because they think nobody ever wants this file and it therefor would waste space in the tarball. You mean that they're distributing whatever is built from the sfd (ttf or whatever) in the tarball and not the sfd? [One would hope that they'd at least be distributing some form of this font.] Don Armstrong -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RHS: libterm-ansicolor-ruby
On 15/08/07 at 00:12 +0530, Deepak Tripathi wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package libterm-ansicolor-ruby. Hi, Have you considered maintaining this package inside the pkg-ruby-extras team? It would probably help a lot when looking for sponsors. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: multiget (still need sponsor)
On 8/20/07, Julian Andres Klode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Sonntag, den 19.08.2007, 22:55 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: On 8/16/07, Julian Andres Klode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 15.08.2007, 23:50 +0800 schrieb LI Daobing: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package multiget. * Package name: multiget Version : 1.1.4-1 Upstream Author : liubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://multiget.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Section : net It builds these binary packages: multiget - graphical download manager The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 388427 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multiget/multiget_1.1.4-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards LI Daobing I am no DD, which means I can not upload it, but I took a look at the package. few things can be improved: - Remove changelog.txt from debian/docs, you install it with dh_installchangelogs - Delete the lines you commented out, this makes it easier to read. - Use Priority: optional Hello, an updated version in mentors.debian.net (fix all above issues), need I repost the RFS? Simply answer to this message with Re: RFS: multiget (still need sponsor) or similar. I attached a diff with a few improvements and a man page. (debdiff.diff.gz) If you want to, you can also add me to Uploaders. (And add a changelog entry, both in me-as-uploader.diff.gz) Also update the timestamp in the next upload. I hope you find a sponsor soon. all these patches merged and uploaded to Debian. I maintain this package in http://code.google.com/p/pkg-newedit/, do you need a SVN account? (you need give me your gmail account ) -- LI Daobing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to deliver an binary file
Am Sonntag, 19. August 2007 21:28 schrieb Don Armstrong: You mean that they're distributing whatever is built from the sfd (ttf or whatever) in the tarball and not the sfd? Exactly what i wanted to say, yes. (one ttf, no sfd). -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/key.asc Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to deliver an binary file
Christian Welzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Sonntag, 19. August 2007 13:23 schrieb Ben Finney: What, then, does upstream consider the source form of the work? Is their distributed source form something that would be considered free software? I think they also believe the above .sfd as the source of the font but the do not want to redistribute it, because they think nobody ever wants this file and it therefor would waste space in the tarball. If that's the case, what they distribute isn't free software — unless any recipient can get that source. Certainly, for it to be included in Debian, we need to distribute the *entire* corresponding source form of the work. -- \Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what | `\ mnemonic means, you've got a problem. -- Larry Wall | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issues with md5deep
On 8/20/07, Giovanni Mascellani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These days I am trying to package md5deep for Debian[1]. I'd suggest a -r option for md5sum would be a better thing to work on, unless the GNU folks rejected it? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packaged blassic and looking for a sponsor
It might be a good idea to include BLASSIC as a package. The two BASICs in the catalog now seem abit dead. YaBasic is being dropped by its developer. And BWBasic is open source but there is no documentation, and apparently no forums. Gandalf Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issues with md5deep
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Paul Wise wrote: On 8/20/07, Giovanni Mascellani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These days I am trying to package md5deep for Debian[1]. I'd suggest a -r option for md5sum would be a better thing to work on, unless the GNU folks rejected it? Why even bother with this? Surely find /path -type f -print0|xargs -0 md5sum foo.md5sum; is far superior to any recursion options that md5sum could possibly come up with. Don Armstrong -- Clint why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common? infinity It... Doesn't? Clint good point http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
