On 08/19/2011 01:31 AM, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
>
> I'm wondering whether it would make sense to remove other cruft as well -
> basically contrib/ entirely and workspaces could go as well. And, well, I think
might be a good idea, thanks.
when i did it, i mainly removed the MUST (test/models_nonfreebsd), and
_some_ obvious ones...
> +dfsg would be preferable over ~dfsg, but you might have good reasons for your
> choice?
im using that because in the pkg-multimedia team (where i partake), we
use "~".
doing a quick stats on my system, i have
32 $(VER)+dfsg
28 $(VER)~dfsg
28 $(VER).dfsg
5 $(VER)dfsg
4 $(VER)-dfsg
>
>> i someone would be willing to have a look at it, i would be very
>> thankful. i would especially like to hear comments on the following topics:
>> - repackaging (for dfsg-compliancy)
>
> See above. Plus some missing copyright information: please check code/pstdint.h,
> code/BoostWorkaround/boost/tuple/tuple.hpp, code/MDCNormalTable.h. Remove the
> LGPL'ed code from tools/assimp_view/ or make upstream ship a proper license.
> This is a requirement of LGPL 4b), which I believe is what applies here.
> Obviously debian/assimp-utils.lintian-overrides then isn't needed anymore.
i checked with upstream and they assure me, that _all_ code is under
BSD(3 clause), and that the 4 files mentioned are wrongly flagged as LGPL.
what is the proper way to proceed from here?
- waiting for new upstream to fix these issues (i have been waiting for
a new upstream for 5 months now; and while they are active, it might
take a long time for them to do a proper release, so i hope to not have
to do that)
- add a debian/patches/fix_licenses.pach to fix the license according to
what upstream says
- fix debian/copyright to make everything BSD-3 and eventually add some
notice that this is in accordance to what upstream says.
as for the 3 files you mentioned, i will ask them again.
>
>> - the debian/libassimp2.symbols file
>
> Please consider using the c++ tag after having applied c++filt; see several
> recent threads on debian-mentors, e.g., [1].
thanks, i'll have a good long read :-)
> others. Yet I do have further comments:
thanks!
>
> - Package FTBFS:
>
> dpkg-source -b assimp-2.0.863~dfsg
> dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> dpkg-source: info: building assimp using existing ./assimp_2.0.863~dfsg.orig.tar.gz
> dpkg-source: error: unwanted binary file: debian/copyright_hints
> dpkg-source: error: detected 1 unwanted binary file (add it in debian/source/include-binaries to allow its inclusion).
ah yes, there was once discussion with jonas about that (and i do
believe thatthe cdbs licensecheck is to blame), but i eventually forgot
about it.
>
> - Upstream seems to ship tests; it would be nice if those were run at build
> time. (But using Debian's cppunit, not the home-grown one in contrib/.)
i will have a look.
the tests mainly use the supplied model data, and a lot of models are
stripped away for dfsg reasons.
i was also thinking of stripping away the ("free") models as well, as
they currently do not appear in any binary package and take 40MB or so
of disk space.
adding tests would then make at least _some_ use of those models.
>
> Hope this helps,
thanks a lot for your comments.
gfmasdr
IOhannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature