Re: RFS: Geant 4
Hi all,
> > > seems nobody has supported your RFS so far which is a shame.
Tbh I haven't done a proper RFS yet, was still waiting for 10.7 (which was released now and I'm working on packaging that).
> I personally will not use mentors for sponsoring since I'm exclusively doing
> this from the team repository (Please also see Sponsoring of Blends[2]).
>
> I guess I need to move to some better hardware than my day to day laptop
> but I'm willing to help you since I consider this package as important.
Thanks!
> Could you please clarify the relation to geant321 package (which is
> currently RC buggy which leads to several consequences in other reverse
> depends of this package). I'd love to see the cernlib stack updated for
> the next stable release.
Geant3 is entirely different to Geant4. Geant4 doesn't use cernlib at all.
I don't really have interested in packaging Geant3, but I can enable the 3 to 4 build option (I'm not entirely sure what it does though).
> > I guess the problem is not that nobody is interested in this, but others
> > have tried before, and there are some big problems:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/Geant4
> > Our group makes heavy use of Geant4, but I myself have used it only once
> > maybe 10 years ago. There is some interest to get this into Debian properly,
> > we have machines powerful enough to build it, but I am not very interested
> > in resolving license issues or packaging non-free software.
> The repository on Salsa says the package goes to main. I have not
> checked d/copyright (yet). What parts are non-free according to
> your opinion?
I already said it in the ITP, I'm not so sure about DFSG compliance. The license reads a bit like MIT. Here is the part mention in the Wiki that could make problems:
"You may not include this software in whole or in part in any patent or patent application in respect of any modification of this software developed by you."
Not sure if this is actually incompatible with the DFSG. I'm not a legal expert, but the GPL v3 has a long paragraph about patents, so I'm sure there is some kind of restrictions there as well. Anyway, I'm in favor of getting this squared away by debian-legal and/or the FTP masters. I don't see an ethical problem in the license.
Reply to: