Bug#1055448: RFS: libsilkit/4.0.37-1 [ITP] -- Simulation in the loop kit by Vector
Hi Tobias,
Thank you for the quick review. I will try to provide some quick feedback/acknowledgement as well below.
On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 11:17:36 +0100 Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Thanks for your RFS!
> as you are listed as upstream contact, let me, as I always do, point you to
> https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide
>
> As this is your first package your are maintaining, please also read
> https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/
>
> This part of the CONTRIBUTING.md concerns me:
> We are sorry, but at the moment, we do not accept external contributions until
> wehave established a contribution process. We're working behind the scenes to
> get this ready in the future. Until then, we would kindly ask you to not open pull
> requests.
>
> This stanca is older than a year (Aug 2022), so when will this happen?
>
> Sorry to be blunt, but putting a DFSG license on a piece of software and
> then saying we do not accept contributions, is (IMHO) not within the
> spirit of the Open Source Community, even if it might on paper fullfil
> the DFSG.
>
> This is also problematic for maintaining the package, as how should we,
> as Debian, upstream patches, for example if you are go missing for
> whatever reasons? Effectively, we would need to maintain a fork, and
> that is certainly nothing Vector could want.
>
> I'd say this brings the RFS very close to the "wontfix" territory,
> certainly I will not sponsor this upload, but other sponsors might.
> (The review below is partial, done until I saw the README.)
>
Our team knows that this is not ideal from a community perspective and we are working towards a solution. I will try to get back to you ASAP on these points.
> In Debian we do not package every software. So maybe I'll need a salse
> pitch here:
> - Why does Vector want it in the Debian archives?
> - Why would Debian want it to be in the Debian archives?
> - Are there other projects using the library that you intend to package
> for Debian?
>
I will probably bundle this with the answer above since both deal with Vectors overall FOSS strategy.
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 12:57:23PM +0000, =?UTF-8?Q?Kr=C3=A4mer@buxtehude.debian.org wrote:
>
> > * Package name : libsilkit
> > Version : 4.0.37-1
> > Upstream contact : jan.kraemer@vector.com
> > * URL : https://github.com/vectorgrp/sil-kit
> > * License : MIT
> > * Vcs : https://github.com/vectorgrp/sil-kit
> > Section : libs
> >
> > The source builds the following binary packages:
> >
> > libsilkit-dev - Development packages for libsilkit
> > libsilkit4 - Simulation in the loop kit by Vector
> >
> > To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:
> >
> > https://mentors.debian.net/package/libsilkit/
> >
> > Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command:
For some reason the last part of your email is omitted from the quote, but it seems I missed quite some stuff. Thanks though for the feedback.
I will work on a revised version now and update the bug report once it is uploaded.
I still have some questions:
- Is it permitted to update the libsilkit version (to 4.0.39) within the review process?
- The only remaining vendoring is GoogleTest, which is only used for the unit/integration tests which are not shipped by the package. Is this allowed or should we use the systems libraries here as well?
- Related, if this is allowed, do we need to include the License information, since we do not ship source files nor object files compiled with these source files in the binary package?
Cheers and thanks again for the review,
Jan
Reply to: