Re: Packaging EMBASSY.
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
according to Wikipedia, "The first use of the term in public was by
Jesse James Garrett in February 2005." EMBOSSes AJAX is much older, so I
am quite reluctant to ask upstream to rename this library.
Well, the problem is that it does not really work like a "first comes
first serves" principle. I would not consider it reasonable if the
EMBOSS project would try to get a trademark (or whatever the right
term is here) on Ajax and ask all those that choose this technology
to rename their stuff. It is just not clever if you are using a name
that is commonly used for a very different thing. So giving upstream
a _hint_ would be quite reasonable (in their own interest to avoid
confusion).
Today, I have finished to clean our package's bugs, and it is almost
ready for upload. Almost, because in the process of registering manuals
with doc-base, I have found a non-free file... I reported it upstream:
http://lists.open-bio.org/pipermail/emboss/2007-October/003106.html
I think that it would make sense to wait a bit for an answer before
calling the firefighters, upload a ~dfsg version with urgency=high and
ask for the removal od EMBOSS from testing, but after last month's
discussion on -devel, and the emergency removal of a kernel which
accidentally contained a non-free firmware, I do not know how urgently
this kind of issue should be treated...
Well, I think the same idea as behind my argument as above is
valid here: The kernel is much more used and has much more importance
than EMBOSS. So if there is something wrong with the kernel an urgent
reaction seems to be reasonable. I would stretch the time scale for
EMBOSS a little bit more (while making absolutely sure that no non-free
stuff would go into an official release for sure). This is what I
would call "common sense" while I'm sure that there are other people
that would disagree in this point with me.
Kind regards and thanks for your work on EMBOSS
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: