Bug#801286: bs1770gain: B-D on unavailable libavformat-ffmpeg-dev

[Andreas Beckmann]

Source: bs1770gain
Version: 0.4.7-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)

bs1770gain FTBFS in sid since the obsolete package
libavformat-ffmpeg-dev is no longer available.


Andreas

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Uploading FFmpeg to jessie-backports

[Bálint Réczey]

Hi All,

Just a short update

2015-09-30 16:33 GMT+02:00 Bálint Réczey :
...
> I see you did a lot of triaging related to this bug, thank you!
> The bug does not affect Jessie, but only packages already in testing
> can be uploaded thus I plan performing upload to jessie-backports
> after 2.8 stayed for a while in testing. Hopefully that means this
> weekend or early next week.
I have prepared the upload in git but ffmpeg have not yet entered
testing due to making groovebasin somehow uninstallable:
https://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ffmpeg

Since groovebasin is scheduled to be removed this can be solved by
simply waiting, but also by fixing the issue and also the RC buggy
dependencies of groovebasin:-)

Cheers,
Balint

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

[Debian/GNU]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 2015-10-08 16:32, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 
> Anyway, further discussing the matter won't clarify it much. The
> clear result, /methinks, is that we all agree this is DFSG-unfree.
> Whether it is distributable in non-free... Is subject to
> discussion.

it's rather obvious that the license in DFSG-unfree, but the exact
purpose of my inquery was to check whether the package would be
distributable in non-free.

in the meantime i was heaving contact with upstream, and here's what
they basically say:

since changing license (even if it is just changing the license name,
without altering the actual terms) requires all authors to accept, and
most project members can only commit little time to the project these
days, they have not tackled the problem so far.
also, they figure that a license "GPL+exceptions" is much easier for
their audience to *understand* (given that they are already familiar
with the GPL, they only have to parse and understand the additional
exceptions) than a new license (even if it is just changing the
license name, without altering the actual terms).
which all in all keeps their motivation small, to even start a
discussion on that topic (again; they've been through that before).

after that i suggested that
- - they could dual-license the work under "GPL+exceptions" (to spare
their happy audience) and under a "Linux Sampler License" (which would
be the same but under a different name)
- - i could contact the remaining authors myself to get their agreement
for this.
- - (but only if they are fine with that).

that was 1 week ago and i haven't received any further answer.
i'm under the impression that i will not receive any more answer on
this topic from their side.

which throws us back to the question whether software under that
license is distributable (in non-free) at or not.


fgmasr
IOhannes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=Lbll
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

[Gunnar Wolf]

Francesco Poli dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:50:53PM +0200]:
> I personally think it is indeed relevant.
> 
> Let me try to explain.
> The term "further restrictions" is meant "with respect to the
> GPL terms", not "with respect to GPL terms + any terms added by the
> copyright holder".
> Hence releasing software under "GPL + further restrictions" creates a
> self-contradictory license, where anyone willing to redistribute has to
> comply with the following conditions:
> 
>  • redistribute under the GPL terms
>  • do not impose any further restriction (with respect to the GPL)
>  • do not drop the restrictions which are already present (copyright
>laws do not allow distributors to drop restrictions)
> 
> One cannot comply with all these conditions at the same time.
> The "GPL + further restrictions" license is therefore
> self-contradictory.

Right. But a content creator (in this case, a software author) is free
to choose whatever terms they see fit for their work. In this case, if
what they come up with that best describes their intent is "something
similar to the GPL, but adding a restriction to it to prevent
appropriation in commercial settings", they are entitled to.

And yes, expressing it as "GPL + restrictions" is unfortunate; perhaps
describing it as a "restricted GPL" is clearer. It legal code were
interpretable as software, the "work" object would be restricted
before being "blessed" (yes, I'm marked with Perl) as GPL, hence the
GPL would not affect its fundamental nature.

Anyway, further discussing the matter won't clarify it much. The clear
result, /methinks, is that we all agree this is DFSG-unfree. Whether
it is distributable in non-free... Is subject to discussion.

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

[bts-link] source package inkscape

[bts-link-upstream]

#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package inkscape
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#

user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org

# remote status report for #459638 (http://bugs.debian.org/459638)
# Bug title: inkscape displays and exports Helvetica R wrong
#  * https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1416691
#  * remote status changed: New -> Fix-Released
#  * closed upstream
tags 459638 + fixed-upstream
usertags 459638 - status-New
usertags 459638 + status-Fix-Released

thanks

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Bug#459638: marked as done (inkscape displays and exports Helvetica R wrong)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:58:33 +
with message-id <20151008165833.ga4...@chase.mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: [bts-link] source package inkscape
has caused the Debian Bug report #459638,
regarding inkscape displays and exports Helvetica R wrong
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
459638: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=459638
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: inkscape
Version: 0.44.1-1

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is really a bug in inkscape, but it seems so to me.

My example for reproduction is this:
Generate a postscript document with an Helvetica R in it, like e.g. the
following tex file does (latex $file.tex; dvips $file.dvi), convert it
to svg (pstoedit -f plot-svg $file.ps > $file.svg), and compare the look
alike of the R between any postscript viewer and gimp on the one side,
and inkscape.

The correct Helvetica R consists on the right lower side of an partly
straight down line, compared with an Arial R which consists of an
diagonal line.  Evince or Ghostview display the correct R from the
ps-file here, inkscape shows and exports it wrong. (The png files are
exported from gimp directly from the postscript format, and from via
inkscape - in the second case I also zoomed the R but that shouldn't
matter for our purpose.)


Cheers,
Andi
\documentclass{scrartcl}
\begin{document}
\def\familydefault{phv}
\pagestyle{empty}
\normalfont\LARGE
R
\end{document}


test.ps
Description: PostScript document
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.91-1

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:51:06PM +, 
bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org wrote:
> # remote status report for #459638 (http://bugs.debian.org/459638)
> # Bug title: inkscape displays and exports Helvetica R wrong
> #  * https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1416691
> #  * remote status changed: New -> Fix-Released
> #  * closed upstream

So, upstream declared this bug as fixed in 0.91.
Also, this bug kept the tag moreinfo for more than 4 years.
Let's close it.  If it's still an issue please reopen it.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org  : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Processed: [bts-link] source package inkscape

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package inkscape
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> #
> user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Setting user to bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org (was 
bts-link-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org).
> # remote status report for #459638 (http://bugs.debian.org/459638)
> # Bug title: inkscape displays and exports Helvetica R wrong
> #  * https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1416691
> #  * remote status changed: New -> Fix-Released
> #  * closed upstream
> tags 459638 + fixed-upstream
Bug #459638 [inkscape] inkscape displays and exports Helvetica R wrong
Added tag(s) fixed-upstream.
> usertags 459638 - status-New
Usertags were: status-New.
Usertags are now: .
> usertags 459638 + status-Fix-Released
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: status-Fix-Released.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
459638: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=459638
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

[Bug 1370175] Re: Libav security fixes Sept 2014

[Mathew Hodson]

** Changed in: libav (Ubuntu Utopic)
   Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Debian
Multimedia Maintainers, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1370175

Title:
  Libav security fixes Sept 2014

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libav/+bug/1370175/+subscriptions

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:06:22 +0200 IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:

[...]
> which throws us back to the question whether software under that
> license is distributable (in non-free) at or not.

Just to be clear, my own personal opinion is that
"GPLv2 + restrictions" is self-contradictory and thus possibly void:
I would not consider software released under such terms as safely
distributable.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgp_BZSCYmczg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

[Ben Finney]

"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)"  writes:

> also, they figure that a license "GPL+exceptions" is much easier for
> their audience to *understand* (given that they are already familiar
> with the GPL, they only have to parse and understand the additional
> exceptions) than a new license (even if it is just changing the
> license name, without altering the actual terms).

These further restrictions are not accurately described as “exceptions”,
though. The GPLv2 explicitly uses that term to refer only to additional
*freedoms from* copyright restriction: exceptional further freedoms the
recipient has under the license terms.

Attempting to apply additional *restrictions*, though, results in
incompatibility with the GPLv2, and the result is no valid licese to the
recipient at all.

> - they could dual-license the work under "GPL+exceptions" (to spare
> their happy audience) and under a "Linux Sampler License" (which would
> be the same but under a different name)

The combination, as discussed, is not a valid license the recipient can
coherently make use of under copyright law. So that's basically a
misleading way to effectively grant no license.

If they want to grant a set of license terms more restrictive than the
GNU General Public License, they have no permission from the FSF to use
that name for the license terms.

> that was 1 week ago and i haven't received any further answer. i'm
> under the impression that i will not receive any more answer on this
> topic from their side.

Thank you very much for your efforts to date!

-- 
 \ “Beware of and eschew pompous prolixity.” —Charles A. Beardsley |
  `\   |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Changing the wiki suggestion to push using --tags to --follow-tags ?

[Jaromír Mikeš]

2015-10-05 9:21 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
> 2015-10-02 21:31 GMT+02:00 Felipe Sateler :

Hi Felipe,

>> I recently became aware of the --follow-tags option to git push. The
>> advantage over --tags is that --follow-tags only pushes the tags that
>> are reachable from the commits pushed. So unrelated tags (eg, upstream
>> ones) are not pushed along to the alioth repository.
>>
>> What do you think about changing the wiki recommendation to use it? I
>> think we should change it.
>
> looks like there are clear advantages and no objections, so lets go to
> change it.

Should I edit our wiki pages [1] or you will do it yourself?

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging

regards

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers