Bug#996965: Packaging bslib + licensing issues
Am Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 01:52:26PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
>
> This was what I was fearing.
> I need to admit that this is a 'gigantic' waste of everyone's time to be doing this.
Yes.
> Even if we give out sources It looks * very * unlikely for someone to edit this in what is a part of
> an * R * package.
I'd rephrase "looks *very* unlikely" to "will never happen".
Its simply since we gave ourself rules and we asked people to stick to
those rules letter by letter.
> > I think so.
>
> Hmm, however, on seeking this on codesearch.debian.net, I came across shinydashboard, see here[1]
> which in principle also looks like a source-less binary and appears to be same ttf (binary) stuff
> but this is in the archive.
>
> Can you please quickly check this up with Thorsten/another FTP master over email/instant message?
Well, in the past I tried this "quickly check via <some medium>" but I
*never* got any answer. It only works by simply trying via new queue.
I'd recommend trying the way that creates less work and than we'll see.
> [1]: https://sources.debian.org/src/r-cran-shinydashboard/0.7.2-1/debian/copyright/?hl=23#L23
>
> > > Do you think upstream could do $something about this?
> >
> > Providing source and binary would be helpful. As I said above we might
> > also consider adding a font package.
>
> Yes, but we need sources for that, right?
> On quickly checking it, I could not find any 'source' package that we can get and compile.
That's a shame. In the past I tried one or two font packages where I
was more lucky.
> Additionally, can you address your findings on the github issue please?
> That'd help track things smoothly.
You mean to ask upstream in issue #412 to include sources and clarify
why 3 versions of bootstrap are needed?
> > Is there any chance that Debian has kind of very similar fonts?
>
> Maybe we can sneak in some fonts from shinydashboard (which appears similar)
> but it does not look straightforward, provided we are maintaining it longterm, it looks
> a bit difficult to manage with syncing up code from different packages so I am not very motivated
> to do something like this, unless it is the 'same' fonts.
I can perfectly understand that such issues are draining from
motivation (guess why I procrastinated). But may be upstream
can be convinced to use some more default fonts - its not that
Debian would include a small set of fonts.
> > I admit I was very confused about the different versions of bootstrap
> > (inst/lib/bs[345]). I f we want to replace these by the Debian packaged
> > versions this might become a problem. No idea what inst/lib/bsw[345]
> > might be. I'm very weak if it comes to understand all this JavaScript
> > packages and maintaining different versions in one package sounds very
> > scary to me since I'm afraid it could depend from specific minor version
> > numbers and the package we distribute might be broken.
>
> I think it would be possible to manage these with symlinking and patching a bit of the code
> We should be able to get this done, IMO. Could also ask upstream once for clarification.
The problem I see is that while patching might be possible its hard to
find out where patching is needed. Finally we are talking about some
GUI we can hardly test automatically and so we never really know whether
something is broken or not. My experience on user behaviour is that
in case of such problems they will simply move on with something else
and will not report - so we will never know ...
> But this does not look like a turn off form the acceptance from NEW queue (which is the main bottleneck here)
I agree that this might be not a bottleneck - except that we possibly
do not have all three bootstrap versions (at least not when I checked
last time, thought).
> At this point, we _really_ need bslib since rmarkdown is lagging several versions behind.
I fully agree.
> > Thanks again for working on this
>
> Please consider helping me out with the above stuff :)
So you want me to get involved into [1], right?
Kind regards
Andreas.
> > > [1]: https://github.com/rstudio/bslib/issues/412
> > > [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_SIL_Open_Font_License
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: