Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Thorsten, On 30.07.2014 14:00, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: unfortunately I have to reject your package. According to the file headers (dec265/* and libde265/* both say they are part of libde265) you mix GPLv3- and LGPLv3-code and say that the result is LGPLv3 (in Readme.md). This is not possible as the result must be GPLv3. Can you please rework your license information? all your concerns have been addressed as discussed in the upload of libde265 0.8-1 which is now pending in the NEW queue: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/libde265_0.8-1.html Could you please review the updated package when you get some time? Thanks in advance and best regards, Joachim ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Joachim, On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Joachim Bauch wrote: all your concerns have been addressed as discussed in the upload of libde265 0.8-1 which is now pending in the NEW queue: great, thanks alot and marked for accept. Thorsten ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Joachim, On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Joachim Bauch wrote: just a quick follow-up on my last mail. As this is my first package I'm not sure if there is anything else I should do, or if I should just wait until someone finds some time to upload it. you need to prod your sponsor more often. Otherwise I am afraid you can only wait. Thorsten ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Joachim
On 2014-08-07 09:49:27, Joachim Bauch wrote:
Dear team,
On 31.07.2014 12:02, Joachim Bauch wrote:
[...]
I understand. We created a new release that contains all your feedback.
@Alessio: could you (or any other uploader) please review my changes
and create/upload a new package of libde265?
I updated the git repository on alioth with these changes:
- Fixed debian/watch to download release tarball, not source tarball.
- Updated libde265 to latest upstream version 0.8
- Added libswscale-dev as build dependency so sherlock265 example
will be compiled.
- Reduced amount of exported symbols and updated .symbols file.
- Added comment about only the samples being GPL to debian/copyright.
[...]
just a quick follow-up on my last mail. As this is my first package I'm
not sure if there is anything else I should do, or if I should just wait
until someone finds some time to upload it.
Due to the lack of feedback I find it difficult to know if progress is
stalled because I'm missing some steps, or because everybody is busy
doing other stuff - which I totally understand ;-)
If Alessio (or someone else) doesn't beat me, here are some points that I'd
like to see fixed before I'd upload it:
* The build reports
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Pre-Depends field of package libde265-dev: unknown
substitution variable ${misc:Pre-Depends}
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package libde265-dev: unknown
substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Pre-Depends field of package libde265-dbg: unknown
substitution variable ${misc:Pre-Depends}
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package libde265-dbg: unknown
substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
That's right. libde265-dev and libde265-dbg don't have them. Please
remove them from Depends and Pre-Depends.
* Please use DEP-3 headers for the patch.
* If I'm not mistaken, the proper capitalization is H.265. Please fix
the Descriptions in d/control.
* Please use Priority: optional (except for the -dbg package, which
should stay Priority: extra).
* There is no need to pass --quilt to dh. You already use 3.0 (quilt).
* I'd put README.md into libde265-dev, i.e. rename debian/docs to
debian/libde265-dev.docs. It doesn't serve much purpose in the
library package.
* (This doesn't affect Debian since the files in extra are not used,
but you should get this addressed upstream: BSD-4-clause and the GPL
are incompatible (see for an example #744267). So anyone using these
files instead of another getopt implementation is unable to
distribute the binaries.)
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
signature.asc
Description: Digital 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Sebastian, thanks for the detailed feedback. On 08.08.2014 16:29, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: If Alessio (or someone else) doesn't beat me, here are some points that I'd like to see fixed before I'd upload it: [...] All reported issues have been changed in the repository on alioth. * (This doesn't affect Debian since the files in extra are not used, but you should get this addressed upstream: BSD-4-clause and the GPL are incompatible (see for an example #744267). So anyone using these files instead of another getopt implementation is unable to distribute the binaries.) I've reported this upstream to our developers, so we can resolve this in one of the next versions. Please let me know if there is anything you want to have changed, or are happy to upload it now ;-) Thanks again and best regards, Joachim ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 2014-08-08 17:11:27, Joachim Bauch wrote: All reported issues have been changed in the repository on alioth. Great :) Please let me know if there is anything you want to have changed, or are happy to upload it now ;-) Please update the date in the changelog trailer to match today's date (run dch -r again) and then I'll build and upload. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 08.08.2014 17:21, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: [...] Please update the date in the changelog trailer to match today's date (run dch -r again) and then I'll build and upload. Done. Best regards, Joachim ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 2014-08-08 17:24:37, Joachim Bauch wrote: On 08.08.2014 17:21, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: [...] Please update the date in the changelog trailer to match today's date (run dch -r again) and then I'll build and upload. Done. Uploaded. -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 08.08.2014 17:35, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: Uploaded. Great, 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
Re: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Dear team, On 31.07.2014 12:02, Joachim Bauch wrote: [...] I understand. We created a new release that contains all your feedback. @Alessio: could you (or any other uploader) please review my changes and create/upload a new package of libde265? I updated the git repository on alioth with these changes: - Fixed debian/watch to download release tarball, not source tarball. - Updated libde265 to latest upstream version 0.8 - Added libswscale-dev as build dependency so sherlock265 example will be compiled. - Reduced amount of exported symbols and updated .symbols file. - Added comment about only the samples being GPL to debian/copyright. [...] just a quick follow-up on my last mail. As this is my first package I'm not sure if there is anything else I should do, or if I should just wait until someone finds some time to upload it. Due to the lack of feedback I find it difficult to know if progress is stalled because I'm missing some steps, or because everybody is busy doing other stuff - which I totally understand ;-) Thanks, Joachim ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Am Donnerstag, den 31.07.2014, 12:02 +0200 schrieb Joachim Bauch: - Fixed debian/watch to download release tarball, not source tarball. I don' understand this change. If the release tarball does not contain the sources, this is most probably wrong. - Fabian ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Fabian, On 04.08.2014 09:18, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 31.07.2014, 12:02 +0200 schrieb Joachim Bauch: - Fixed debian/watch to download release tarball, not source tarball. I don' understand this change. If the release tarball does not contain the sources, this is most probably wrong. the release tarball is the result of make dist and provided as download from the releases page on Github, so it will include the sources, too. Best regards, Joachim ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Thorsten, thanks for the detailed feedback, please see my comments below. On 30.07.2014 16:05, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: ok, so I would suggest to change the header of those application files from This file is part of libde265. to something like This file is part of a sample application to show the usage of libde265: Ok, this has been changed. How should the license information be reworked? Is it sufficient to update the Readme.md to state that the library is LGPLv3 but the sample apps are GPLv3? Yes, that would be ok. The icing on the cake would be if you add this as comment to debian/copyright as well. The Readme.md has been updated and a comment added to debian/copyright. No, that information should be part of the source tarball that everybody can download. I understand. We created a new release that contains all your feedback. @Alessio: could you (or any other uploader) please review my changes and create/upload a new package of libde265? I updated the git repository on alioth with these changes: - Fixed debian/watch to download release tarball, not source tarball. - Updated libde265 to latest upstream version 0.8 - Added libswscale-dev as build dependency so sherlock265 example will be compiled. - Reduced amount of exported symbols and updated .symbols file. - Added comment about only the samples being GPL to debian/copyright. Thanks in advance and best regards, Joachim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Dear Maintainer, unfortunately I have to reject your package. According to the file headers (dec265/* and libde265/* both say they are part of libde265) you mix GPLv3- and LGPLv3-code and say that the result is LGPLv3 (in Readme.md). This is not possible as the result must be GPLv3. Can you please rework your license information? Thanks! Thorsten === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Thorsten, thanks for the feedback to the package. Please find my comments about LGPLv3 / GPLv3 below. On 30.07.2014 14:00, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: unfortunately I have to reject your package. According to the file headers (dec265/* and libde265/* both say they are part of libde265) you mix GPLv3- and LGPLv3-code and say that the result is LGPLv3 (in Readme.md). This is not possible as the result must be GPLv3. The decoder library libde265 which is LGPLv3 is compiled only from the sources in folder libde265 (and subfolders). The folders dec265 (and sherlock265) contain example applications that use the decoder (through dynamic linking of the library). These example applications are GPLv3. Can you please rework your license information? How should the license information be reworked? Is it sufficient to update the Readme.md to state that the library is LGPLv3 but the sample apps are GPLv3? If so, can this be done through a patch while packaging? Best regards, Joachim ___ 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: libde265_0.6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi Joachim, On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Joachim Bauch wrote: The decoder library libde265 which is LGPLv3 is compiled only from the sources in folder libde265 (and subfolders). The folders dec265 (and sherlock265) contain example applications that use the decoder (through dynamic linking of the library). These example applications are GPLv3. ok, so I would suggest to change the header of those application files from This file is part of libde265. to something like This file is part of a sample application to show the usage of libde265: How should the license information be reworked? Is it sufficient to update the Readme.md to state that the library is LGPLv3 but the sample apps are GPLv3? Yes, that would be ok. The icing on the cake would be if you add this as comment to debian/copyright as well. If so, can this be done through a patch while packaging? No, that information should be part of the source tarball that everybody can download. Thorsten ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
