Re: Package Request
On Sat, 2013-12-07 at 10:22 +0000, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 07 Dec 2013 at 01:19:45 -0600, John James Ammerman wrote:
>
> > What email would I use to suggest an addition of packages to the Debian
> > repo?
> >
> > If this is correct address then:
> >
> > http://www.python.org/about/success/mmtk/
> > http://dirac.cnrs-orleans.fr/MMTK/
> >
> > I would like to suggest these packages for the Debian repository.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/12/msg00240.html
Before starting it this way, ensure that there are no license issues.
_Everybody_ is able to learn how to build a binary and how to package it
following the rules of a distro, at least if upstream mentions all
dependencies, it just needs a learning curve how to package. IMO the
biggest issue is to find out how to handle licenses, already when there
e.g. is GPL'ed software using CC'ed icons. There are easier to
understand and more tolerant licenses than those usually used for Linux.
It's like using Emacs, very complicated. I share the point of view of
Mr. Stallman, but not the implementing. Even the complicated way to make
the rules doesn't protect against cliquishness, the Linux audio
community set somebody that much under pressure that two forks, allowed
by the license, died, because of the manipulative coder who does not
want a fork of his software.
Evidence: http://linuxaudio.org/mailarchive/lad/2013/9/20/202040
Reading the whole thread is impotent, the tons of mails before and after
this one on LAU and LAD IIRC.
The license insanity is a PITA and doesn't protect anybody since there
always is a lobby making a chosen license null and void. And it's not
some enemy from outside, it's within the Linux community.
That reminds me, that I still have to answer some mails regarding to
this issue off-list :S.
Good luck with packaging! First ensure if you're thick-skinned enough
for this job.
Regards,
Ralf
Reply to: