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

Re: updated vspline package data to upstream version 1.0.0

Dear Kay,

Le samedi 04 avril 2020 à 11:08 +0200, Kay F. Jahnke a écrit :
> After yet another year of constant use I have decided on moving vspline
> up to version 1.0.0. I consider it mature enough to warrant this step,
> and I feel I can recommend it's use in production code, mainly due to my
> own extensive use in pv, my image and panorama viewer, and in
> python-vspline, the cppyy-based python interface to vspline.
> I hope this decision meets your approval, and I also hope that my
> modifications to the package infrastructure are correct - here on my
> system I managed to successfully do a uscan import from upstream and
> build a package with gbp which installed locally, so all should be well.
> Sébastien, if you are happy with my work, please do your part. If
> anything is amiss, please let me know!

Could you possibly:
- push the upstream and pristine-tar branches, and also the tags
- run the lintian-brush tool (from a sid chroot), which fix various
small issues (it will also bump to debhelper 12), and push the result

> When I installed the package I made here on my system, the package
> management said the license was 'proprietary'. My code is licensed with
> the Expat license, and this is also what I've put into debian/copyright.
> Can someone help with this issue? I'd like potential users to see that
> the license is indeed common and very permissive.

I don’t understand how this can happen, since your package is in the
main component of Debian (and not in contrib or non-free).

Could you give more details about the warning message, and about the
tool that displayed it?

Thanks for your work,

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  https://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  https://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: