Bug#996965: Packaging bslib + licensing issues
On 23 February 2022 6:39:57 pm IST, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
>Am Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 01:52:26PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
>> 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 really feel like proposing a GR right away, so we get above these hard bound rules and * actually * work on user experience
>> > 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.
Alright, after some discussion and asking the upstream when both you and I can agree, we will dput and see what entails
>> [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.
Can't do much about this, to be fair; this is just luck here
>> 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?
All your findings/questions:
* Why are three versions of bootstrap needed?
* Is it possible to provide sources for font binaries?
* If not, can you adapt to the ones that are in debian?
* Are there more fallbacks that you could introduce
* Is it possible to simplify licensing for binaries?
..... So on
>> > 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.
Yes, I also was thinking about it and addressed it above
>> 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 ...
As long as there's no hard dependency on the versions of those files, we should be fine. But only upstream can clarify
>> 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).
We only have one version in the archive at given point in time.
>> > 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?
Right.
Regards,
Nilesh
>> > > [1]: https://github.com/rstudio/bslib/issues/412
>> > > [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_SIL_Open_Font_License
>
>
Reply to: