Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 21:32, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> [060620 11:43]:
> > The bug #335278 is relatively easy, but has been neglected for quite
> > long time. I sent a patch to bts and contacted maintainer, but got no
> > feedback after being waiting for a reasonable timeframe. Thus, I prepared
> > a non-DD NMU:
>
> Im often to sponsor this NMU; squashing some rc bugs is always a good
> idea ;)
>
> But if I see it correclty, your patch doesn't deal with the following
>
> points mentioned in franks original bug report:
> > 1.2 debian/copyright: "This package has many utilities that are GPL
> > or close to GPL code." "close to GPL"???
> > "The original source code was published on the Net by a group of
> > cypherpunks. I picked up a modified version from the news."
> > Quite a license...
Unfortunately this is out of my control. I've sent two emails to the upstream
(as well as CC'ed maintainer) asking for these legal issues to be clarified
somehow in a reasonable way, but no any feedback as of yet... for more than
month or so.
> > 1.3 You claim that the copyright holder is Craig Small, but that's not
> > true, it's Francisco Rosales and "a group of cypherpunks"
I've missed that easy one. Fixed in 3.7-2.2 you can grab from:
ftp://ftp.logos-bg.net/debian-addons-bg/dists/unstable/shc/
Well, it is always better to have a package version with less bugs than the
previous version, but in case 1.2 is a showstopper I'll tend to agree with
the package removal.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: