Bug#861649: Newer version uploaded
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 06:29:33PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2018 13:58:07 CET Tobias Frost wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 06:48:10PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> > > On Sunday 11 March 2018 00:18:32 CET Gard Spreemann wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 7 March 2018 19:32:48 CET Tobias Frost wrote:
> > > > > Please review d/copyright. I found at least one undocumented file which
> > > > > is licensed Apache 2.0 and another one under LGPL3+. Neither are in
> > > > > d/copyright.
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking into this, and will get back to you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've updated the copyright information for the Apache 2.0-licensed
> > > file, as well as another MIT-licensed file with missing coverage.
> >
> > Thanks!.
> >
> > Note that some files are claimed copyright just by "20xx INRIA" and
> > "20xx INRIA (France)"
> > As copyright must be verbatim, you need to addtionalyl write this in d/copyright.
> > Not sure about all those other variants of INRIA: Are they different
> > organisattions (like a subsidiary) of just different writing of the same
> > one? In the first case, you need to have one stanca for every different
> > organisations,
> > (hint: license-reconcile might help here)
>
> I got in touch with upstream, who says:
>
> [Begin quote]
> This is a problem we have seen, but it was "too late", everybody
> copy/paste the colleague copyright and just changed the Inria center's
> name... I have started to change it every where, every time I fix a
> bug, but from what you say, I shall change it once for every files ;-)
>
> The correct Copyright is "Inria".
>
> If you want, I can change it everywhere and make a new version if it
> can accelerate the submission.
> [End quote]
>
> It certainly sounds great if they can fix this upstream, but would a
> statement like this suffice for now?
Thanks for clarify it with upstream!
I guess it will be sufficient to store the email as comment in
d/copyright, but probably less effort would be to just have an addtional
Copyright: stanca for it (as you can combine paragraphs in d/copyright,
it will be only one extra line in the Files: * section)
> > Speaking about external sources... I see that there is also cpython in
> > the source. As cpython is packaged, can it be also removed via
> > Files-Exluded (as you said, you're repacking already, so we can reduce
> > the size of the source package even more)
>
> Maybe I misunderstood, but I can't see a bundled cpython. Did you mean
> the cython subdirectory? It just contains .pyx sources to be compiled
> with cython.
thanks for explaining! I thought those are cython source, I did not
realize that it is only used by cython. -> disregard my comment...
> > Older stuff already mentioned, but still not fixed:
> > - many versioned build dependencies are already satisfied since
> > oldstable. As thus those old version constraint can be removed,
> > especially as this is a new package.
>
> I've fixed this now (but haven't made a new upload).
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your help. I'll upload a new version (also having a
> new dependency that has become necessary after a change to sid's
> Python package) when I hear back from you about the copyright question
> above.
\o/
Looking forward for the upload!
--
tobi
>
> Best,
> Gard
>
Reply to: