Hi,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:46:51AM +0200, Emmanuel Promayon wrote:
> >1. Remove tetgen fom the upstream tarball (may be also cut the
> >plugin in question as well if it does not make any sense without
> >tetgen). 2. Build a camitk package targeting at main from this source
> >tarball.
>
> Wou
Hi Andreas,
If you can remove it upstream this would probably the bes solution.
Please note the following: The Debian Release team does not accept
new upstream versions for Wheezy in general. So if the change should
be successfull for propagation to Wheezy please make prfectly sure
that this c
Hi Emmanuel,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 08:47:33AM +0200, Emmanuel Promayon wrote:
> >I personally would be happy if you would decide for the later because
> >in addition you get a lot of other information and how people might
> >deal together with other problems.
> After my answer yesterday I subscr
Dear Andreas,
I personally would be happy if you would decide for the later because
in addition you get a lot of other information and how people might
deal together with other problems.
After my answer yesterday I subscribed to the CamiTK package only, but
reading your answer, I just reconside
Hi Emmanuel,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:35:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Promayon wrote:
> First sorry for not commenting on the bug, I have to find a better
> way to interact with the process, and thank you for all the
> comments.
There are two chances to get information about your packages:
1. Either
Hello Andreas,
First sorry for not commenting on the bug, I have to find a better way
to interact with the process, and thank you for all the comments.
The use of tetgen is not a fundamental feature of CamiTK (and anyway
less important than being in contrib).
Therefore the code depending on i
Hi Emmanuel,
the package camitk received a release critical bug[1] which you possibly
did not noticed. It would be great if you would read the history of the
bug log[1] and comment on the usage of Debian packaged tetgen which
would enable us to move the package to contrib rather than non-free.
P
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:12:35PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>
> Actually all I did noticed is that tetgen is in non-free in debian already:
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tetgen.html
It might make sense to verify whether a removal of tetgen from camitk
and rather use the Debian packaged
Le Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:12:35PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
>
> Actually all I did noticed is that tetgen is in non-free in debian already:
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tetgen.html
Ah, nevermind, the next clause is non-free as well, and the next-next answers
my first question.
D
Hi Charles,
[CCing Christophe]
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
>> Package: camitk
>> Severity: serious
>> Tags: upstream
>> Justification: Policy 2.1
>>
>> The camitk source code contains tetgen. Which
Le Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
> Package: camitk
> Severity: serious
> Tags: upstream
> Justification: Policy 2.1
>
> The camitk source code contains tetgen. Which is non-free license:
>
> $ cat ./actions/mesh/meshprocessing/tetgen1.4.3/LICENSE
> ...
> Dist
Package: camitk
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream
Justification: Policy 2.1
The camitk source code contains tetgen. Which is non-free license:
$ cat ./actions/mesh/meshprocessing/tetgen1.4.3/LICENSE
...
Distribution of modified versions of this code is permissible UNDER
THE CONDITION THAT THI
12 matches
Mail list logo
