Re: Request for packaging: glMLite
Florent Monnier a écrit :
> This is a request for packaging the OpenGL bindings glMLite:
> http://www.linux-nantes.org/%7Efmonnier/OCaml/GL/
> [...]
Since I was otherwise prodded about that, I'll answer to this mail...
My first question would be: how does glMLite compares to lablGL? Well...
I've looked on the net and the main thing is that it provides
lower-level bindings, and even a lablGL-compatible interface. Is that
right? Did I miss something? Have you ever considered working with
lablGL upstream on improving the existing bindings?
> Along the three last months there was about 1.2 downloads a day
> of the tarball (downloads by bots are not counted).
> Along the same period if I only count the downloads made by users
> who have "debian" or "ubuntu" in their user-agent string there are
> about 10 downloads by month.
I guess a popular library might qualify for packaging... Do you have
examples of third-party projects that use glMLite?
BTW, you should have a look at [1] (especially RFP) to submit a proper
packaging request.
[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
> This package is mostly written by me under GPL, except the file
> "loader-libpng.c" written by David HENRY under MIT license.
I see that there is also an embedded copy of xmlm, by Daniel Bünzli
(under BSD 3 clause). Moreover, there several other copyright holders in
TEST/* (under GPL). But the most worrying are files in RedBook-Samples/*
which read:
> US Government Users Restricted Rights
> Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to
> restrictions set forth in FAR 52.227.19(c)(2) or
> subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and
> Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 and/or in
> similar or successor clauses in the FAR or the DOD or NASA FAR
> Supplement. Unpublished-- rights reserved under the copyright
> laws of the United States. Contractor/manufacturer is Silicon
> Graphics, Inc., 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA
> 94039-7311.
I haven't investigated this much, but it doesn't look like DFSG
compliant. But I guess these files could just be removed from the
(source) Debian package.
> [...] About the samples in
> the directory nehe-examples/ I'm not very sure what are the terms
> of use of the nehe examples, I have read on another web-site that
> it could be considered as public domain.
Could you give references? In doubt, the safest bet is to get rid of
those files in the (source) package.
BTW, I've also noticed that there are some .svn directories in the
tarball... not very nice.
Best regards,
--
Stéphane
Reply to: