Re: Accepted linux-wlan-ng 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch2 (source all amd64)
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 12:58:31PM +0100, Enrico Tassi wrote:
> > Why was this uploaded to testing-proposed-updates without consulting
> > debian-release first? We're still waiting for a version to reach testing
> > that fixes the known RC bugs; reuploads delay getting the package into a
> > state where it can be pushed into testing, and I'm not sure what this latest
> > upload is even supposed to fix because it's for an issue that's not even in
> > the BTS.
> Sorry for the caotic way we are handling the package.
> 0.2.5-2etch1 is fine for testing, and fixes all the known RC bugs about the
> package.
But pushing that version into testing is no longer possible, because it was
overwritten by your later uploads.
> In the meanwhile the kernel team decided to accept linux-wlan-ng into
> the modules-extra package so that the modules for lwng will be
> automatically rebuilt every kernel upload.
I hope you don't mean that they're doing this for etch, those aren't changes
that should be made during the freeze.
> While reviewing the package they found that a file (namely the utility to
> upload firmware, prism2dl.c) was under a non DFSG compliant license (and
> worse, it was not redistributable at all). The package already contains a
> script to download the firmware (non redistributable either) from upstream
> svn repository, so we removed the incriminated .c file for the orig.tar.gz
> and fixed the script to download the .c file from upstream svn
> repository too. This lead to 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch1.
> Unfortunately we made a mistake in 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch1 regarding the way
> prism2dl.1 is installed. We fixed that in 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch2.
> Sorry that this was confusing and not well documented in the bts, but
> when I saw the non redistributable file I fired the upload asap. Few
> days later the upstream answered my request of clarification about the
> license of that file and he changed it in the upstream repository to
> GPL/MPL.
Given that the license has been clarified so that this code is really free,
and the diff between 0.2.5-2etch1 and 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch2 is fairly extensive
in order to support this additional download change, I would ask that you
re-upload to t-p-u a package equivalent to the 0.2.5-2etch1 which had
already been approved. That does unfortunately require another re-roll of
the original upstream tarball under a different version number, so that it
sorts between 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch2 and 0.2.6.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: