Re: [fis-gtm] ready for upload - needs sponsor
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013, at 04:35 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Amul,
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 06:25:33PM -0500, Amul Shah wrote:
[snip]
[amul] [rewrote old information for brevity] FIS releases GT.M sources for Linux IA32 and x86_64 as one archive. The archive is named fis-gtm-<version major>-<version minor>-<sub minor version>.tar.gz and untars into a directory with the same name as the archive without the tar.gz.
[snip]
> > The binary archives are available from the following links:
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm/files/GT.M-amd64-Linux/V6.0-003/
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm/files/GT.M-x86-Linux/V6.0-003/
> >
> > The source archive is available from the following link:
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm/files/GT.M-x86-Linux-src/V6.0-003/
> >
> > The same sources are also available via SourceForge CVS.
[snip]
> May be I was not reading your previous mails studiously enough but
> exactly this was the information I needed and this was totally new to
> me. I tried to express this in my mail on month ago[1] where I used the
> word "urgently" in connection to clarification between 'pro' and 'src'
> because we needed to create a working watch file first. When I
> yesterday tried to fetch the tarball with the watch file which I assumed
> to be valid I endedt up with the binary distribution. That's why I was
> wondering whether you were assuming that we would package the binaries
> ...
[amul] Understood.
> > With respect to not understanding the principles behind packaging, I would say that I don’t know what the principles are. Hence no understanding. For that I apologize. My knowledge is completely adhoc.
>
> Well, in the case above probably the main principle is beeing more
> verbose in case some open questions are remaining. In your last mail
> you have precisely answered these. Thanks for this and sorry if I was a
> bit grumpy yesterday night.
[amul] Grumpy is fine. At least we're on the same page now. :)
> > To get this going forward, do I need to push the archive somewhere as part of the GIT repository? Or is it the watch file that needs fixing?
>
> The watch file is just fixed in the packaging git repository now.
[amul] Great.
[snip]
> There is one remaining question: In the packaging git in
>
> debian/upstream-files/
>
> there are some external README files (GTM_V6.0-001_Release_Notes.html)
> which are included into the packaging as upstream changelog. BTW,
> missing to specify the proper license for these files was finally the
> reason for the rejection. From my point of view these files are doing
> more harm than good. Besides this rejection it always creates manual
> work - for instance I now need to fetch the file for the new version.
> If this changelog is not included in your source tarball it is probably
> not important enough for the user to be shipped inside the binary Debian
> package. So why not simply providing a link inside README.Debian where
> the user can find the needed information instead of creating manual
> work over and over and blowing up the debian/copyright file with an
> extra copy of GFDL?
>
> In short: Where is the download location of
>
> GTM_V6.0-003_Release_Notes.html
>
> and would you agree to just provide a link to this location instead of
> the complete file?
[amul] IIRC, during the hackathon we (as in everyone present) decided to include the release notes since there was no change-log file. We can, as you suggest, simply provide a link to the release notes. We have two link options below.
[amul] All GT.M release notes files from V5.0-000D onward are available from the link below. If we place this link in the README, then we won't ever need to update the link in the README (yes, I am lazy :).
http://tinco.pair.com/bhaskar/gtm/doc/articles/index.html
[amul] If the expectation is that we point to the version specific release note, then below is the link that we use. Could we programmatically regenerate the link per release using the same logic as the watch file?
http://tinco.pair.com/bhaskar/gtm/doc/articles/GTM_V<major version>.<minor version>-<sub minor version>_Release_Notes.html
[amul] With respect to missing the proper license, the web page says the following in the "Legal" section.
Copyright © 2013 Fidelity Information Services, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts and no Back-Cover Texts.
GT.M™ is a trademark of Fidelity Information Services, Inc. Other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
This document contains a description of GT.M and the operating instructions pertaining to the various functions that comprise the system. This document does not contain any commitment of FIS. FIS believes the information in this publication is accurate as of its publication date; such information is subject to change without notice. FIS is not responsible for any errors or defects.:
[amul] IANAL, but the page explicitly calls out the GFDL v1.3. Or does GFDL/Debian rules require that the full license file ship with the documentation?
[amul] So with the watch file fixed and this one file switched to a link, is GT.M set for upload?
Regards,
Amul
Reply to: