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

Bug#698681: Any progress on seafile-client?



On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Jérémy Lal <kapouer@melix.org> wrote:
> Well, it's probably just a matter of taste. I found it easier to
> strip the embedded libraries than to cherry-pick all the scattered
> licenses and gather them up in the debian/copyright. It's also much
> easier on our ftp-masters to review less sources.

If it was a master of taste i would do the same as you, get rid of convenience copies.
The idea behind the links i gave above is to refrain people from repacking on
personal taste; and distribute *original* upstream tarballs.
Of course, once there is a good reason to do repack (typically dfsg) then you can remove
embedded convenience copies as well. But you might as well not exclude them.

Well, there was no upstream tarball anyway, I did create one from git (git archive), so basically no-repacking has happened here.
 
Slightly unrelated : the version libsearpc 1.1.0+dfsg is misleading since
there is no DFSG involved in this repacking.

True, but it was so convenient :). Please suggest a better name, or let's cross-fingers and let's hope our upstream friends will release 1.1.1 without bundled json-glib library (pretty please).

Anyway the current status of seafile packages:

http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/libsearpc.git;a=summary (uploaded)
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/libzdb.git;a=summary (uploaded + asked upstream to grant OpenSSL exception)

* - E: libccnet0: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl & E: ccnet-bin: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl

Shuai, please add OpenSSL exception to the license (if you are going to keep GPL-3 and not MIT) as suggested here:

http://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html

O.
--
Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>

Reply to: