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

Re: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)



On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 11:01:16PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> [adding release team]
> 
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:49 pm, Utkarsh Gupta <utkarsh@debian.org> wrote:
> > Hi Praveen,
> > 
> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Pirate Praveen
> > <praveen@onenetbeyond.org> wrote:
> > >  It looks like we will have to remove ruby-vcr and we will have to
> > >  disable tests for the following packages. I don't think there is
> > >  another way, thoughts?
> > 
> > Maybe worth opening an issue upstream and discuss the cons of this
> > change or something? Or if that doesn't work out
> > and we need this
> 
> I doubt discussing with upstream will yield any possitive outcome as this is
> a specific philosophical movement.
> 
> See https://github.com/vcr/vcr/pull/792
> and
> https://github.com/vcr/vcr/issues/804
> 
> > package or something, would forking be an option?
> 
> https://github.com/vcr/vcr/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#510-feb-5-2020
> 
> We will have to go back to 5.0 and someone will have to maintain it
> independently.
> 
> Hi Release team,
> 
> Do you think this needs to be fixed before bullseye? If yes, do you agree to
> change the reverse dependencies listed in my previous message to this bug?

I don't think that will be needed. I reverted to 5.0.0 locally, added a
few patches, and at least all of our reverse dependencies seem to pass
their tests with it:

========================================================================
=  Testing reverse (build) dependencies
========================================================================

rebuild      nanoc               ... PASS
rebuild      ruby-coveralls      ... PASS
autopkgtest  ruby-faraday        ... PASS
rebuild      ruby-graphlient     ... PASS
rebuild      ruby-mixlib-install ... PASS
rebuild      ruby-octokit        ... PASS

So in principle we could fix this issue without touching anything else.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: