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

Re: Accepted linux-wlan-ng 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch2 (source all amd64)

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 12:58:31PM +0100, Enrico Tassi wrote:
> > Why was this uploaded to testing-proposed-updates without consulting
> > debian-release first?  We're still waiting for a version to reach testing
> > that fixes the known RC bugs; reuploads delay getting the package into a
> > state where it can be pushed into testing, and I'm not sure what this latest
> > upload is even supposed to fix because it's for an issue that's not even in
> > the BTS.

> Sorry for the caotic way we are handling the package.

> 0.2.5-2etch1 is fine for testing, and fixes all the known RC bugs about the
> package. 

But pushing that version into testing is no longer possible, because it was
overwritten by your later uploads.

> In the meanwhile the kernel team decided to accept linux-wlan-ng into
> the modules-extra package so that the modules for lwng will be
> automatically rebuilt every kernel upload.

I hope you don't mean that they're doing this for etch, those aren't changes
that should be made during the freeze.

> While reviewing the package they found that a file (namely the utility to
> upload firmware, prism2dl.c) was under a non DFSG compliant license (and
> worse, it was not redistributable at all). The package already contains a
> script to download the firmware (non redistributable either) from upstream
> svn repository, so we removed the incriminated .c file for the orig.tar.gz
> and fixed the script to download the .c file from upstream svn
> repository too. This lead to 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch1.

> Unfortunately we made a mistake in 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch1 regarding the way
> prism2dl.1 is installed. We fixed that in 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch2.

> Sorry that this was confusing and not well documented in the bts, but
> when I saw the non redistributable file I fired the upload asap. Few
> days later the upstream answered my request of clarification about the
> license of that file and he changed it in the upstream repository to

Given that the license has been clarified so that this code is really free,
and the diff between 0.2.5-2etch1 and 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch2 is fairly extensive
in order to support this additional download change, I would ask that you
re-upload to t-p-u a package equivalent to the 0.2.5-2etch1 which had
already been approved.  That does unfortunately require another re-roll of
the original upstream tarball under a different version number, so that it
sorts between 0.2.5+dfsg-1etch2 and 0.2.6.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: