Re: Debian Maintainer application
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello Joey,
Joey Hess wrote:
> Raphael Geissert:
>> I wouldn't say they have zero activity because:
>
> I've looked all these WNPP bugs over, and while one or two contain the
> info you list above, most of them consist of just the original WNPP bug,
> tagged pending for a long time, with no followup about why it's not
> uploaded.
>
> That's a pattern that I find very annoying in general. You're obviously
> not the only developer to do this; in fact I suspect that a large fraction
> of all WNPP bugs have a similar lack of information.
I'll add more information on the ITP's tomorrow (I was about to leave when I
received your message).
>
>>
>> php-amfext: it is released under the PHP license which is rejected by
>> ftp-master for things that aren't PHP itself.
>
> This inconsitency is news to me, and makes no sense as described.
> Any references?
Here's a public one:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-php-maint/2008-January/003468.html
>
>>
>> kio-locate: I've even been added to the pkg-kde alioth project so I could
>> co-maintain it with the KDE Extras Team. In order to build the package it
>> requires scons, but there's currently a bug which prevents the built
>> program from being 'installed' (see #459685)
>
> According to the BTS, the bug is marked notfound in the current version
> of scons, if I read it right the bug is thought to be in a kde.py file,
> isn't that part of kio-locate.
It was marked as done a few days ago and as I stated in my previous message
I'm on my last exams period (the 24th it'll be over) so I haven't had very
much time to take at the maintainer's reply.
But as for what I can see his reply is more or less useless because he is in
some way confirming the existence of the bug but not doing anything at all
on the subject (might be possible I missunderstood something but I'll take
a deeper look at it this weekend as soon as I have some free time).
The kde.py file isn't part of kio-locate (which is written in C++, not
Python), it is part of the build system: scons.
>
>> zend-framework: there are some files which are released under a different
>> license (everything reported at upstream's issues tracker[1][2][...]).
>
> The first of these seems to consist of nothing more than some copyright
> statements in files that aren't formatted identically to others:
>
> - * @copyright Copyright (c) 2005-2007 Zend Technologies Inc.
> - (http://www.zend.com)
> + * @copyright Copyright (c) 2005-2007 Zend Technologies USA, Inc
>
> How can such a trivial inconsistency be somehow significant to Debian?
I guess I missed something in the comments I added to the issues tracker,
but in some conversation with Zend people in pkg-php-maint they were
notified about some files missing copyright information. Additionally there
are some files used for the tests (there might be others but the ones I
remember are the sample atom/rss/foo xml files which most of them are feeds
from some site. Some of those contain copyright information, others don't
but in the overall they don't say a word on whether they can be
redistributed/modified/etc).
I decided to give the Zend people some time to fix it but after two minor
releases they haven't fixed/clarified anything so I'll probably get the
tests out of the tarball and see if there's anything non DFSG-free.
>
> The second issue is about a file that was licensed under version 1.0 of
> the Zend Framework license, and will be switched to a BSD license. Is
> the old license not DFSG free?
The old license is not available anymore so I can't tell for sure whether it
is DFSG-free or not.
Sincerely,
Raphael Geissert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHjpfTYy49rUbZzloRAuebAJ4gKowvwLN7rx50a5H92kFuKWgpkACgnGXF
Fl36XxIx4EN6LdJwI9m+g8o=
=rDHm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: