[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: BALLView: new package version

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:54:10PM +0200, Andreas Moll wrote:
> >    I will try, but my boss wrote it himself. Therefore, I guess he wont 
> >    let it be removed.
> >
> >Sorry for the German quote in an ENglish mailing list, but my fortune
> >cooky of yesterday was:
> >
> >  Zivilcourage nennt man das, was von einem Mann übriggeblieben ist,
> >  wenn sein Chef das Zimmer betreten hat!
> >                -- Wernher Freiherr von Braun (Physiker)
> Well,  Wernher Freiherr von Braun was imho just one other brilliant 
> german opportunist, but the quote is still correct ;)
> But, until I have finished my PHD thesis, I am just the will-less slave 
> of my Ph.D. supervisors ;)

OK. It's just that the debian-upstream circumvents (one could say
"cracks") the license check by touching config.lic, whereas other people
have to approve the LGPL manually.  This is very annoying when
autobuilding, as you can imagine (autobuilers usually don't even have a

It just looks a bit strange to me, to force users to accept a FLOSS
license, but circumvent the acception for people building the Debian

But in the end, it's not a grave thing, and as you said, you need to
work this out with your supervisor.

> >So the Debian maintainer in you should ask the upstream maintainer in you:
> >What are you doing if there is a packaging issue that has to be fixed in
> >the debian directory and needs a new Debian version? Will you release a
> >new upstream version with unchanged program code?
> Oh, I feel a bit schizophrenic right now ;)
> I guess such issues can be solved, by the following approach:
> A patch in downstream, that modifies the script 
> BALL/debian-upstream/createDebianSource such that it modifies the 
> corresponding files after copying the debian-upstream directory to debian.
> Or am I missing something?

Apart from the fact that this look overly complicated, and patching
things in debian/ is really discouraged (dunno about patching
debian-upstream, you're the first to have this idea), I can only
reiterate that my opinion is that the package will be rejected
inclusion into Debian as-is with debian/rules using debian-upstream/foo.

But maybe I am wrong.

Another thing: I could offer group-maintenance and sponsored uploads of
ballview (and possibly ball later on) in the debichem SVN project, if
you are interested.



Reply to: