[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#818724: marked as done (RFS: task-spooler/0.7.6-1)

Your message dated Sun, 20 Mar 2016 09:53:06 +0000
with message-id <20160320095306.GE32164@chase.mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#818724: RFS: task-spooler/0.7.6-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #818724,
regarding RFS: task-spooler/0.7.6-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
818724: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818724
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal


Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "task-spooler"

 * Package name    : task-spooler
   Version         : 0.7.6-1
   Upstream Author : Lluís Batlle i Rossel <viric@viric.name>
 * URL             : http://vicerveza.homeunix.net/~viric/soft/ts/
 * License         : GPLv2+
   Section         : misc

It builds those binary packages:

  task-spooler - personal job scheduler

To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/task-spooler

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/task-spooler/task-spooler_0.7.6-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

   * Imported Upstream version 0.7.6
   * Update patches
   * Bump standards version to 3.9.7
   * Use https for VCS-* fields
   * Fix typo as suggested by lintian

Regards,
   Alexander Inyukhin

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:04:12PM +0300, Alexander Inyukhin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 05:40:59AM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > though you got Vcs-Git wrong, you can't use /cgit/ to clone.
> 
> I had checked this before upload, and it worked.

umh, this must be a fairly recent addition, then.
Sure, it doesn't help making thing less confusing, I'm certain it wasn't
possible some time ago.

I'd really love if the alioth admins could announce once again a
canonical URL.

> All of these patches are not applied by upstream.
> Some of them were forwarded before.
> 
> I sent relevant patches again and update headers.

:(
let's hope they're incorporated...

> > also, about d/copyright: I assume some years should be bumped, and I see
> > this weird diff from the previous upload:
> > 
> > - This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > - it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > - the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
> > + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > + modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> > + as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > 
> > why does it loses the version??
> 
> How do you generate that diff?

I just run debdiff against the version in the archive.
I'm not doing this RFS out of the git repository, but using mentors.d.n.

> There is a some kind of uncertainty about the license.
> The source code contains text of GPL-2 license without
> explicit license grant, but the site claims GPL2+ for that code.
> 
> A discussion about the previous upload is here:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.ci?bug=781523
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/05/msg00001.html
> 
> So, in the previous upload license version is changed from GPL2+ to GPL2.

yes, I see, that's also how I'd have interpreted it.

> I am not sure about that version number thing, though.

I don't know how you lost it ;)

> > and btw, having debian/* GPL-2+ technically makes upstream unable to
> > pull patches from debian/patches/*, as GPL-2+ is incompatible with
> > GPL-2 (only).
> 
> Isn't that a one-way incompatibility?
> As far as I understand, GPL2+ is a set of licenses including GPL2,
> so GPL2+ code could be used in GPL2-only project.

oops.
I messed this up :(

Who knows what I was thinking about (maybe the coffee I had yet to
have).  taking GPL-2+ code into a GPL-2-only project it fine, just that
the included code will have to follow GPL-2 terms, and can't take
advantage of later versions (basically, the result is a GPL-2-only
work).

> Anyway, I do not want to restrict use of these patches.
> What license should I use?

it's fine, sorry for the noise.

> I have uploaded a fixed package.
> Thanks for review!

nevermind my troubles with GPL-2/GPL-2+ before, maybe it was just too
early in the morning :(

I uploaded it :)
sorry again for causing non-existant concerns...

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org                              : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: