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

Bug#1091930: marked as done (RFS: parser/3.5.0-1 [QA] -- Parser 3, HTML-embedded scripting language)

Your message dated Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:41:58 +0200
with message-id <87o70o9la1.GNU's_not_UNIX!-yavor@gnu.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1091930: RFS: parser/3.5.0-1 [QA] -- Parser 3, HTML-embedded scripting language
has caused the Debian Bug report #1091930,
regarding RFS: parser/3.5.0-1 [QA] -- Parser 3, HTML-embedded scripting language
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1091930: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1091930
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for the orphaned package "parser":

 * Package name     : parser
   Version          : 3.5.0-1
   Upstream contact : Art Lebedev Studio <mailbox@parser.ru>
 * URL              : http://www.parser.ru/en/
 * License          : NTP, LGPL-2+ with Libtool exception, permissive
                      and NTP, other, FSFUL, permissive, GPL-2+, X11,
                      GPL-3+ with Bison-2.2 exception, LGPL-3+ or GPL-2+,
                      University-of-Illinois-Open-Source-License,
                      BSD-3-clause, LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3, Apache-2.0,
                      MIT~Boehm
                      (effectively GPL-3 as a whole)
 * Vcs              : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/parser
   Section          : web

The source builds the following binary packages:

  parser3 - Parser 3, HTML-embedded scripting language (metapackage)
  parser3-common - Common files for packages built from the Parser 3 source
  parser3-cgi - Parser 3, HTML-embedded scripting language (CGI binary)
  libapache2-mod-parser3 - Parser 3, HTML-embedded scripting language
                           (Apache2 module) 
  parser3-dev - Files for Parser 3 module development

To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/parser/

Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this
command:

  dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/parser/parser_3.5.0-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

 parser (3.5.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium

   * QA upload.
   * New upstream release.
   * Run wrap-and-sort -ast.
   * debian/patches/pcre2.patch: Delete; applied upstream.
   * debian/patches/libxml2-2.12.patch: Likewise.
   * debian/patches/103_auto_p.patch: Likewise.
   * debian/gbp.conf: New file.
   * debian/operators.ru.txt: Delete; now present in upstream tarball.
   * debian/parser3-common.docs: Install both operators.* files.
   * debian/examples/index.ru.html: Update from the canonical URL.
   * debian/README.source: Remove redundant stuff.
   * debian/control (Build-Depends): Add bison; sometimes the build fails
     because of that.
   * debian/tests/control: New file.
   * debian/tests/adequate: New test.
   * debian/tests/parse: Likewise.
   * debian/copyright: Perform an audit of the code; add missing stanzas,
     add more copyright holders, fix many discrepancies (Closes: #1073580).
     Thanks Phil Wyett.  Update copyright years.  Explain why Debian
     distributes the package under GPL-3.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Bastian Germann wrote:
> Please fix #1091999, otherwise there is no point in QA uploading the
> package.

Right; I'm closing this bug and will remove the package from mentors.
I'll talk to upstream for fixing it; they changed some files to
Apache-2.0 as per my request.

> I suggest to remove it instead, so if you do not really use the
> package, this might be the better option.

If there's no way to fix the licensing problem then removal would be
the only viable option; I guess.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: