Richard Johnson wrote: > Joeroen, I know, it is a difficult name to cut&paste...
Constructive & important part below, if you don't want to read the rant part, hit CTRL-F/the search menu/emacs-s/slash-s whatever and look for "Constructive Part". I hope that you understand why the tone of this message is far from nice, but try answering people that there is a bug, that it is fixed in the official release, but that for some weird reason some people are releasing broken versions in your (read my) name! It is heavily frustrating, that is why you folks get this rant. Skip reading the following part if you want to be constructive and get to the point in resolving this issue. Rant section is additionally marked with "</end of rant>" Skip to "Constructive Part" to avoid. <start of rant> > This is a debdiff, all it does is create a patch against the differences > between the previous version and the current version. The reason you > don't see that stuff is due to it being in the previous and it hasn't > been changed with the current You say that the 'debdiff' only includes the 'changes' in the new upstream. Well then lets take a look at the at what the the old "PATCH" actually does: ftp://ie.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/a/aiccu/aiccu_20050131-1.diff.gz The few sections of it: --- aiccu-20050131.orig/debian/docs +++ aiccu-20050131/debian/docs @@ -1,3 +1,2 @@ doc/README -doc/LICENSE doc/HOWTO It throws away the LICENSE as specified by the authors of the program. --- aiccu-20050131.orig/debian/changelog +++ aiccu-20050131/debian/changelog @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +aiccu (20050131-1) unstable; urgency=low + + * Initial release + + -- Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:56:20 +1100 + It throws out the original changelog and replaces it with nonsense. And what is this: --- aiccu-20050131.orig/debian/copyright +++ aiccu-20050131/debian/copyright @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +This package was debianized by Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on +Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:56:20 +1100 Who is that person? Gary Coady(*) added the debconf support and we (SixXS) did the debian packaging, as the diff shows, that name is only slapped on to change the COPYRIGHT file, as shown above and include a !CHANGED! license in a !COPYRIGHT! file. Licenses != COPYRIGHT. * = http://www.lyranthe.org/diary/2005/04/17/ipv6-on-ubuntu/ If there is anybody that did something on the packaging then it is Gary Coady who deserves credit, not somebody who even did even has a SixXS account to test anything of it, and clearly, as the diff shows only added his name to it. Next to that the person contacted SixXS to ask if the package could be included in Debian. The Diff also patches this in, which does NOT come from us: 8<------------------------------------------------ +[ summary: BSD-like but with two clauses (4) and (5) which make aiccu non-free ] ------------------------------------------------>8 That is clear nonsense and is NOT the license that SixXS applied, as such it violates the license that SixXS applied to AICCU. Also note: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=388759 also clearly where Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) states: 8<------------------------------------------------ The license has been discussed on #debian-release, and it's my understanding that the old license was also DFSG-compliant in intent (with the help of some clarifications from upstream that had already happened). ----------------------------------------------->8 The 'patch' adds that it is "non-free", while one of the main people in debian clearly says that it is fine. So this "debdiff" patch, applies a WRONG license, and even defames the packages this way. It also changes the COPRIGHT into a LICENSE file!? Debian might have a lot of people who consider themselves laywers, but changing copyrights and license files is not thing a thing that one should be able to do. >. debdiff only pulls in the differences and > applies them to the current version in the repositories. If that is the 'difference' with the new one, when are you actually going to use the REAL NEW one!? This "patch" doesn't include the fixes that are included in 2007.01.07 as released by us. And as it does not include the fixes, it is broken: that is AYIYA will not work. The official version does work though, see the first part above: users will complain to us and we will have to say that the version released by ubuntu is broken from the version released by us. > If the license > and copyright files, which I am sure they are, are already in the repos > there is no need to reupload them. They are, because Ubuntu choose to use a MODIFIED license which does not match the original license. Changes LICENSES is the freedom of the author, Ubuntu is NOT the author. > This is done to save space here in > the bug reports. If there wasn't a license or copyright in the package, > then it wouldn't be in the repositories in the first place. What a nonsense answer, if you want to save space reference simply to the original package. Seeing once software defamed and broken and then having to answer all the users that get those broken packages what the problem is, is NO FUN. </end of rant> Constructive Part: What I, as the author of AICCU, would like to see Ubuntu do: Use the OFFICIAL release of AICCU. This can be found at: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/aiccu/ or as a APT repository: deb http://www.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/debian/ unstable main deb-src http://www.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/debian/ unstable main Which runs perfectly fine on the Ubuntu's we have tested. It includes already since the first release and even the beta's full Debian packaging information, this as we still believe that the Debian packaging system is a great system and we love using it. Please please please please please use that version. The version you are now going to use is *broken and not supplied by SixXS* We though do get bug reports about it. Which is very annoying as we have to explain users that Ubuntu is providing a broken package. Also if you are using the official release then you will be using the REAL license that is applied to AICCU and *not* the license that somebody modified into some version of their own. Also, as noted above in the rant, from a comment by Steve Langasek, even the old license of AICCU was DFSG free, and now with the 3-clause BSD license since 2007-01-07, as such it can be safely included in universe. Thank you very much for your time. But *pretty pretty pretty please* with sugar on top and whipcream and loads of other jummyness please resolve this as it is frustrating. Of course in case there are problems, don't ever ever hesitate to contact us ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) so that we can look into it or resolve any other unclarity. Thank you for your attention. Greets, Jeroen -- Include aiccu in multiverse https://launchpad.net/bugs/72518 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
