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

Re: Bug#683445: Consider including GMSH into Wheezy



Dear release team,

the license problem of GMSH is resolved [1], the upstream
kindly agreed to add a license exception.

Please, consider adding this package (version 2.6.1.dfsg-4 in unstable)
into Wheezy. I understand, that is, probably, too late for adding "new"
packages, but it would be frustrating for many engineers and scientist
not to find this program in the future stable release.

GMSH had no other blocking RC-bugs except of this license one.

Thank you.

Anton

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/683445


2012/8/6 Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>:
> Hello Anton.
>
> Anton Gladky <gladky.anton@gmail.com> (31/07/2012):
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: unblock
>>
>> Please, consider including GMSH into Wheezy. GMSH is a mesh
>> generator, which is used for preparation of meshes for different
>> simulation and modelling tasks.
>
> This would mean adding a new package to testing, which is something
> we're not doing at this stage (except for rare occasions).
>
>> Unfortunately it is affected by a license issue because of opencascade
>> license GPL-incompatibility #617931, like some other packages, which
>> are still in Wheezy.
>
> It was caught in the oh-so-painful petsc transition, and was RC buggy,
> if that sheds some light on the reason why it was removed.
>
>> But the license question has a chance to be some day resolved.  It
>> will be pity, if the next stable release will loose such important for
>> scientists and engineers package.
>
> I don't see us unblock this package, especially since the licensing
> issue isn't solved at the moment. Closing this bug report accordingly.
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlAgPD4ACgkQeGfVPHR5Nd1XZQCgw57qhOkUn2frAjoJ9NpxXDsb
> EksAn19+XtE2EJJTkzRc8mR673h7PZ62
> =Ew/u
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>


Reply to: