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

Re: Bug#683445: Consider including GMSH into Wheezy

Sorry. The correct bug number is #617931.


2012/9/19 Anton Gladky <gladky.anton@gmail.com>:
> 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.
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>> EksAn19+XtE2EJJTkzRc8mR673h7PZ62
>> =Ew/u
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply to: