Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable (fwd)
Hi everybody, so DSA says that everything is ok with them and the buildd people should care about the license issues ... What would be the next step? Can I do anything to help? Thorsten -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 07:10:17 +0200 From: Tollef Fog Heen To: debian-ad...@lists.debian.org, Thorsten Alteholz Subject: Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable (fwd) ]] Thorsten Alteholz On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Peter Palfrader wrote: Thorsten Alteholz schrieb am Montag, dem 05. August 2013: So what do you think, shall it be allowed to build mgltools-sff? That's probably buildd's call. They'd have to ensure the buildd chroots and build processes in Debian are in compliance with any and all licenses. I do not know whether they have the infrastructure for that. But don't we have the "XS-Autobuild: yes" stuff in the control file for this situation? So at least the release team should have checked the license and already might have a list of "good" packages. As Peter said, I suggest you ask the buildd people and not DSA as this is their domain, not ours. Cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1308062147590.28...@tor.gallien.in-chemnitz.de
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 07:14:04PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > > On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Julien Cristau wrote: > >>Ok, but was does that mean for my package. Isn't it allowed to let a > >>non-free package depend on another non-free package anymore? > >> > >It's allowed, it just won't be autobuilt. > > Hmm, the package already has this XS-Autobuild stuff in > debian/control. The buildd even tries to build it, but complains > that a dependency is not available. But that could not be true!? > > Or do I interpret this message wrong: > mgltools-sff (= 1.5.7~rc1~cvs.20130519-2) build-depends on missing: > - mgltools-bhtree It was not given to the buildd. This is a check where the Build-Depends are checked against what is in the Packages' files, before the buildd tries it. This is done using edos-distcheck. The difference is that there used to be 1 Packages files that give the buildds access to what's in incoming that contained all architectures and contained main, contrib and non-free. Those are now all seperate files like the normal archive. The buildds themself should now all also be configured to have a deb-src line for non-free, but only have a deb line for main and contrib. So even if we moved it out of the BD-Uninstallable state, it wouldn't get build. I'm not sure what policy that the debian.org hosts have for installing and running non-free software, but I understand that this is problematic, and I think we should at least ask DSA first before doing so. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130804182342.ga25...@roeckx.be
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Julien Cristau wrote: Ok, but was does that mean for my package. Isn't it allowed to let a non-free package depend on another non-free package anymore? It's allowed, it just won't be autobuilt. Hmm, the package already has this XS-Autobuild stuff in debian/control. The buildd even tries to build it, but complains that a dependency is not available. But that could not be true!? Or do I interpret this message wrong: mgltools-sff (= 1.5.7~rc1~cvs.20130519-2) build-depends on missing: - mgltools-bhtree Thorsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1308041909570.2...@tor.gallien.in-chemnitz.de
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 14:29:40 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Julien Cristau wrote: > >>But there has been a successful build of mgltools-sff in 2012 [1]. > >>Have there been any changes since then? Obviously there have been, > >>but would it be possible to revert them? > >> > >The fact that incoming had both main and non-free packages in the same > >archive was a bug. That has since been fixed. > > Ok, but was does that mean for my package. Isn't it allowed to let a > non-free package depend on another non-free package anymore? > It's allowed, it just won't be autobuilt. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Julien Cristau wrote: But there has been a successful build of mgltools-sff in 2012 [1]. Have there been any changes since then? Obviously there have been, but would it be possible to revert them? The fact that incoming had both main and non-free packages in the same archive was a bug. That has since been fixed. Ok, but was does that mean for my package. Isn't it allowed to let a non-free package depend on another non-free package anymore? Thorsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1308041426200.28...@tor.gallien.in-chemnitz.de
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:36:20 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > thanks for helping me. > > On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > >I assume that we only give the packages from main to check that, > >so that build-depends on packages from non-free will always have > >this effect. > > But there has been a successful build of mgltools-sff in 2012 [1]. > Have there been any changes since then? Obviously there have been, > but would it be possible to revert them? > The fact that incoming had both main and non-free packages in the same archive was a bug. That has since been fixed. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
Hi Kurt, thanks for helping me. On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I assume that we only give the packages from main to check that, so that build-depends on packages from non-free will always have this effect. But there has been a successful build of mgltools-sff in 2012 [1]. Have there been any changes since then? Obviously there have been, but would it be possible to revert them? Thorsten [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mgltools-sff&arch=sparc&ver=1.5.6~rc3~cvs.20120206-1&stamp=1328717639 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1308041126460.23...@tor.gallien.in-chemnitz.de
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 11:28:01PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > Hi, > > I have a problem with package mgltools-sff [1]. According to the > buildd it is not installable due to a missing build-depends. > But that missing package (mgltools-bhtree, [2]) is available on all > architectures. > I have no clue what is going wrong. Can you please shed some light on it? I assume that we only give the packages from main to check that, so that build-depends on packages from non-free will always have this effect. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130803215824.ga25...@roeckx.be
