Re: Bug #866601: RFS: segyio package is ready
Sorry for any noise on the commit mailing lists, I misread a few things in the instructions and had to re-commit the entire packaging repository.
The package seems to be up & running in the debian-science/packages repo, and I've uploaded a fresh build to mentors. I'm looking into adding it to a meta package, but hopefully the packaging itself is now up to standards. If not, please let me know what I can do to fix it.
Thanks!
________________________________________
From: Jørgen Kvalsvik
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:26:45 PM
To: Sébastien Villemot
Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org; package-sponsorship-requests@lists.debian.org; Nicolas Boulenguez
Subject: Re: Bug #866601: RFS: segyio package is ready
> I am willing to sponsor your package if you accept to put it under the Debian
Science Team umbrella.
Thank you! I have no problems at all putting segyio under Debian science.
> I quickly looked at your packaging and it looks good. One point: you put your
packaging under the GPL, while upstream code is under the LGPL. Even though I
am a strong GPL-advocate, this may not be the right choice: this means that
patches that you contribute will not be under a license suitable for upstream.
So the recommended practice is to use the same license in the packaging as
upstream, but in the last analysis this is your call.
I don't mind switching to LGPL for the packaging, if it makes patching easier for everyone, so I'll fix this immediately.
I'll read the packaging policy carefully and hopefully fix all packaging issues by tonight or tomorrow afternoon.
________________________________________
From: Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:15:58 PM
To: Jørgen Kvalsvik
Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org; package-sponsorship-requests@lists.debian.org; Nicolas Boulenguez
Subject: Re: Bug #866601: RFS: segyio package is ready
Dear Jørgen,
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 05:40:06PM +0000, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
> I consider the package segyio ready for consideration in Debian, and I'm
> looking for a sponsor for the package.
>
> Please see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=866601 and
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/segyio for more details.
I am willing to sponsor your package if you accept to put it under the Debian
Science Team umbrella.
Instructions are there:
http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html
(you should mostly follow them except for two things: 1) priority "extra" has
been deprecated, so "optional" should be used instead; 2) in the Vcs-Browser
field, "/git/" should be replaced by "/cgit/").
Ideally you should also categorize your package in one of the metapackages, see
chapter 2 (or even create a new metapackage if your package fits into no
existing category).
I quickly looked at your packaging and it looks good. One point: you put your
packaging under the GPL, while upstream code is under the LGPL. Even though I
am a strong GPL-advocate, this may not be the right choice: this means that
patches that you contribute will not be under a license suitable for upstream.
So the recommended practice is to use the same license in the packaging as
upstream, but in the last analysis this is your call.
Best,
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the
information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
this message.
Thank you
Reply to: