[Debian-med-packaging] camp_0.7.1.5-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Tue Nov 29 07:42:48 UTC 2016

Hi Andreas,

Sorry indeed I missed your previous email yesterday, I just played
around with my filters and I forgot to check the correct mailbox folder.
Your're right, this seems simpler for now to keep the package like it
is, but I keep in mind the idea for the next round.

Apparently you fixed everything on your own, so you don't need anything
from me, do you ?

Thanks again.

Le 29/11/2016 à 08:22, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> Hi Flavien,
> 
> just a short top-posting.  May be you missed my mail yesterday since I
> sticked to the mailing list policy and dropped the CC which worked
> several times before to reach you.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Thorsten did not digged in the history of the camp
> code.  Ftpmaster is usually inspecting what's inside the upload if there
> are no explicite hints to external license statements (may be I'm wrong
> here - I admit the message was very short :-().  My guess is that the
> "contradicts itself" statement was about the GPL-3 - GPL-2
> "conflict"^Wtypo in the debian/* paragraph which I fixed yesterday.
> 
> While I need to say that merging a project with another fork might make
> perfectly sense technically this was not in the original mind of the
> initial mail.
> 
> For the moment I'd recommend uploading as is to have a chance to get
> fw4spl into the next stable release.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>         Andreas.
> 
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:50:14PM +0100, Flavien Bridault wrote:
>> Hi Thorsten,
>>
>> I discussed this issue with my colleagues and we have some propositions
>> to fix this.
>>
>> Camp is a dependency for fw4spl, the package that I want to push on
>> Debian. However camp is no longer maintained by tegesoft. That's why we
>> forked it a while ago, and during this time, we fixed some issues, like
>> c++11 support. Corentin built the former camp debian package based on
>> this fork. However in the meantime, some pull-requests have been merged
>> on the main repository and they changed the licence as well. Today the
>> project looks clearly abandoned and it seems we are the only one to care
>> about it. There is a new fork, ponder, which is recommended by the
>> former developers but we have not yet considered the switch as the
>> library satisfies our needs in the current state.
>>
>> So our first proposition, the simplest, would be to start a new fork,
>> based on the latest MIT licence, on which we put all the changes we made
>> so far, C++11 support and some tabs removal (iirc Corentin did that for
>> debian packaging). Does it sound right ? An another solution would be to
>> stick to the "official" abandoned repository and apply our modifications
>> as debian patches, but that might be a bit more tedious to maintain for
>> us in the future because we will have to synchronize these patches and
>> our fork. Last we could also try to propose a pull-request but I don't
>> feel confident that it is merged at the end, according to the message in
>> the README.md and also the fact that http://dev.tegesoft.com/ returns a 404.
>>
>> What do you think about that ?
>>
>> Thanks again for your time.
>>
>> Le 28/11/2016 à 14:33, Flavien Bridault a écrit :
>>> Hi Thorsten,
>>>
>>> I have no idea why Corentin removed the upstream licence files by a
>>> patch, it is sufficient I guess to not install them. I've just tried to
>>> keep them at build and it doesn't prevent the package to built, I mean
>>> there is no error reported by lintian for instance.
>>>
>>> For the copyright, I'm not sure what bothers you exactly. For the
>>> debian/* folder, maybe I should add myself as well ?
>>>
>>> For the copyright of camp, at the time we forked the project, it was in
>>> LGPL. I checked and then they switch to MIT in 2014. So maybe that's
>>> what bothers you ? The copyright belonged to TECHNOGERMA when we fork
>>> and now it belongs to tegesoft... So I'm not sure which one I should
>>> use. I guess I should stick with TECHNOGERMA but you might then find
>>> confusing that we report https://github.com/tegesoft/camp as the Source:
>>> field in the copyright file.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your work,
>>>
>>> Le 28/11/2016 à 14:00, Thorsten Alteholz a écrit :
>>>> Hi Flavien,
>>>>
>>>> please rework your debian/copyright. The information in it contradict itself.
>>>> It is also rather strange to change upstreams license files by a patch.
>>>>
>>>>   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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Debian-med-packaging mailing list
>>> Debian-med-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org
>>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Debian-med-packaging mailing list
>> Debian-med-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org
>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
> 
> 

-- 
*Flavien BRIDAULT*
Ingénieur de Recherche

fbridault at ircad.fr

*IRCAD France*
1, place de l'Hôpital - 67091 Strasbourg Cedex - FRANCE

http://www.ircad.fr/ <http://www.ircad.fr/>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20161129/ddd52e14/attachment.sig>