OoO La nuit ayant déjà recouvert d'encre ce jour du mercredi 21 mai 2008, vers 23:30, Frederic Lehobey <Frederic@Lehobey.net> disait: >> About debian/copyright, you cannot ship files using PHP License 2.02 or >> PHP License 3.0. This will be rejected by ftp-master. > That is what I feared at first (see #442361), but I found other > packages (like php-html-common, > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/php-html-common/current/copyright, > php-net-socket, php-xml-parser [3.0], all of which are in my > dependencies) that are under PHP License 2.02 and already included in > the archive. I don't remember exactly how this is handled, but those licenses are accepted only for PHP, as per REJECT FAQ: http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html I suppose that the packages you cite were here before this statement. There are bugs filed in this case. For example, for php-net-socket: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332616 (not a very active bug) This is quite unfair that already packaged packages can keep the problematic PHP license and that new softwares are automatically rejected on this basis. You might ask on debian-legal if the situation has somewhat evolved on this situation. >> You seem to not >> ship most of those files but you still ship QuickForm. For other files, >> you should add a notice in debian/copyright that the files are not >> shipped with the package. > Very precisely, currently, the files of the dependencies _are_ in > upstream tarball (and in the source package), but not _used_ by my > package (using Debian packages instead). Do you mean I should remove > all those files from upstream tarball and create some repackaged > phpmyvisites.dfsg upstream sources? No, those files are allowed to be distributed freely. Just add a note (above the license) to tell that those files are not shipped in binary packages. Otherwise, ftp-master might be a bit quick to reject the package. >> You should use dbconfig-common to configure database. This is not very >> difficult and there is a lot of packages using it. > Yes, I am willing to do it, but (as I said in README.Debian) I fear > it will require quite heavy patching of upstream (there is an > installation procedure quite intricately included in the rest of the > code) and I am undecided about what would be the best way to do it. Do > you have some example of other packages PHP where only _parts_ of the > installation procedure has been diverted in order to take advantage of > dbconfig-common? I do it for text-pattern: I just create the empty database and let the installation scripts (a bit patched) do the remaining. This is quite intrusive and difficult to maintain: textpattern was also trying to create the database. Since this is not the case for phpmyvisites, you can try to just create an empty database with dbconfig-common and let phpmyvisites handle the remaining installation procedure. > PS : I have fulfilled your Mail-Followup-To, but should > dbconfig-common questions go to -mentors, -webapps or both? (I do not > want to bother people). :-) Well, mentors is a good place for all kind of questions. And webapps is a good place too since we are talking about a webapp. -- Question: Comment s'écrit Jacoboni ? Réponse: Jacoboni, pas Jacobini. -+- fcol-faq in Guide du linuxien pervers - "Bien configurer son Jaco" -+-
Attachment:
pgpSee8W9Q3VO.pgp
Description: PGP signature