Comments regarding freehep-swing_2.0.3-1_amd64.changes
Hello maintainer, I am accepting freehep-swing. However, as discussed, please consider adding the missing copyright holders and try to prod upstream to add a proper license file to the tarball. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: Comments regarding freehep-swing_2.0.3-1_amd64.changes
Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
Did you receive my last email concerning freehep-swing (quoted below)? I
didn't receive any answer, is this because you have no time for it or
because there were technical problems with email?
Giovanni.
Sorry, I may have missed it, my apologies.
Giovanni Mascellani ha scritto:
Hi,
(Cc:-ing Gabriele Giacone, comaintainer with me)
Barry deFreese ha scritto:
Hello maintainer,
The orig.tar.gz for FreeHEP swing doesn't seem to carry a LICENSE or
COPYING file and I cannot find any mention of the GPL in any headers.
Where are you getting that it is licensed under the LGPL 2.1?
Here is the license statement:
http://java.freehep.org/license.html
And here the team:
http://java.freehep.org/team-list.html
I've contacted upstream authors (Mark Donszelmann) about the fact that
license pages talks about LGPL-2.1 and contains LGPL-3. He answered me
that the whole freehep is under LGPL-2.1 and that he would had updated
the license page (but he didn't).
I don't remember the specific issue to be honest. The best thing to do then
would be to cite in debian/copyright which files are LGPL-2.1 and which are
LGPL-3. Apparently not having the full text of the license if it can be proven
is OK, though I am not sure I agree with it so just re-upload.
Also, you are missing at least a couple of copyright holders in
debian/copyright. CERN and SLAC.
Should I cite them? I cited the real authors (working for CERN or SLAC
or other institutions), and nothing tells me that these institutions
have a share on the copyright. Should I write upstream to clarify this?
Author Copyright holder. As an example I have authored code for gnumach and
Hurd but I do not hold copyright on the code.
Other similar packages freehep-{chartableconverter-plugin,util,io} have
already been accepted by FTP masters and are in the database. They're in
a situation almost identical to this.
Each of us have a little different view on problems so sometimes things get
accepted and some don't. As I said, earlier, if the license can be proven and
the license doesn't specifically state that a copy of the license MUST accompany
the source, it is apparently OK. (This was news to me.)
Thank you, Giovanni.
In other words a simple re-upload and it may be accepted, though again I would
suggest adding the actual copyright holders and mentioning any differences in
license versions in debian/copyright.
Thanks, and sorry for the delayed response.
Barry deFreese
Debian FTP Assistant
___
pkg-java-maintainers mailing list
pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Comments regarding freehep-swing_2.0.3-1_amd64.changes
Hello maintainer, The orig.tar.gz for FreeHEP swing doesn't seem to carry a LICENSE or COPYING file and I cannot find any mention of the GPL in any headers. Where are you getting that it is licensed under the LGPL 2.1? Also, you are missing at least a couple of copyright holders in debian/copyright. CERN and SLAC. I have not accepted or rejected this package yet until I hear back from you. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
simple-xml_2.1.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hello maintainer, I am rejecting simple-xml. Debian/copyright states the files are LGPL-2.1 but I cannot find anywhere in the file headers nor any COPYING or LICENSE file that states they are 2.1, but rather just LGPL. Am I missing it? Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#549812: lucene2: FTBFS: annotations are not supported in -source 1.4
Hi, Here is a patch that works for me. It doesn't seem to work with the 2.9.0 on mentors though. Thanks, Barry deFreese #! /bin/sh /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch-run ## 100_javac_source_1.5.dpatch by bdefre...@bddebian3.bddebian.com ## ## All lines beginning with `## DP:' are a description of the patch. ## DP: No description. @DPATCH@ diff -urNad lucene2-2.4.1+ds1~/common-build.xml lucene2-2.4.1+ds1/common-build.xml --- lucene2-2.4.1+ds1~/common-build.xml 2009-10-27 15:45:20.0 -0400 +++ lucene2-2.4.1+ds1/common-build.xml 2009-10-27 15:45:36.0 -0400 @@ -53,8 +53,8 @@ property name=javac.deprecation value=off/ property name=javac.debug value=on/ - property name=javac.source value=1.4/ - property name=javac.target value=1.4/ + property name=javac.source value=1.5/ + property name=javac.target value=1.5/ property name=javadoc.link value=http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/docs/api// property name=javadoc.access value=protected/ diff -urNad lucene2-2.4.1+ds1~/contrib/analyzers/build.xml lucene2-2.4.1+ds1/contrib/analyzers/build.xml --- lucene2-2.4.1+ds1~/contrib/analyzers/build.xml 2009-03-02 12:11:16.0 -0500 +++ lucene2-2.4.1+ds1/contrib/analyzers/build.xml 2009-10-27 15:46:12.0 -0400 @@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ Additional Analyzers /description - property name=javac.source value=1.4 / - property name=javac.target value=1.4 / + property name=javac.source value=1.5 / + property name=javac.target value=1.5 / import file=../contrib-build.xml/ /project ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Comments regarding simple-xml_2.1.5-1_i386.changes
Hello maintainer, I am trying to get some clarity on simple-xml. In debian/copyright you specify that the package is LGPL 2.1. However, I cannot find any indication of a version of the LGPL the package is carried under. Am I missing it somewhere? Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
vecmath1.2: should this package be removed?
Package: vecmath1.2 Severity: normal User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: proposed-removal Dear Maintainer, While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a possible candidate for removal from Debian, because: * Outdated (last upload 2006). * Very low popcon scores. * Inactive upstream. If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package, please just close this bug and do an upload also fixing the other issues. If you agree that it should be removed, send the following commands to cont...@bugs.debian.org (replace nn with this bug's number): severity nn normal reassign nn ftp.debian.org retitle nn RM: packagename -- RoM; reasons thanks For more information, see http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#548753: vecmath1.2: should this package be removed?
severity 548753 normal reassign 548753 ftp.debian.org retitle 548753 RM: vecmath1.2 -- RoQA; outdated, dead upstream, very low popcon thank you Hi, I am moving this right to an RM after speaking with one of the Java Team maintainers. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: tijmp_0.8-2_amd64.changes REJECTED
Torsten Werner wrote: wrong/missing license and copyright statements: COPYING: GPL-3+ src/java_crw_demo.c and src/java_crw_demo.h: Copyright (c) 2006 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. other license that seems to be incompatible to DFSG ยง6: You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility. Cheers, Torsten Hi folks, Apologies for absconding this e-mail but is there any chance that tijmp works with openjdk? We are seriously looking at removing sun-java6 and tijmp is the only remaining build dependency. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: tijmp_0.8-2_amd64.changes REJECTED
snip tijmp 0.8+dfsg-1 Build-Depends on openjdk-6-jdk instead of sun-java6-jdk. Its currently waiting in NEW for processing. Cheers, Michael Michael, Yeah, I missed the change in build-dep, my screw up. Sorry for the noise! Barry ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#529493: libnsuml-java: Please remove build-dep on jikes-kaffe
Package: libnsuml-java Version: 0.4.20-12.1 Severity: important Hi, jikes is orphaned, unmaintained, and buggy and therefore we are trying to remove it from the archive. libnsuml-java currently build-depends on jikes-kaffe. Could you please try to build with one of the other java compilers and remove the jikes-kaffe build-depends? Another option would be to remove libnsuml-java from the archive as it has no r(b)depends and a low popcon score. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#528081: xerces-j: Please remove build-dep on jikes
Eric Lavarde wrote: Hi, sounds to me that the best resolution would be to remove xerces-j as well: no software depends on it (says 'apt-cache showpkg'), and it's been superseded by xerces2 since ages (also upstream). I'm no DD but let me know if I can help. Eric Barry deFreese wrote: Package: xerces-j Version: 1.4.4-4 Severity: important Hi, jikes is orphaned, unmaintained, and buggy and therefore we are trying to remove it from the archive. xerces-j currently build-depends on jikes. Could you please try to build with one of the other java compilers and remove the jikes build-depends? I've tried it with openjdk-6-jdk and it seems to work fairly well but does still have some issues. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA I'm certainly fine with that. Any comment from the Java Maintainers? I'm happy to file the RM: if you would like. Thanks, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#528081: xerces-j: Please remove build-dep on jikes
Package: xerces-j Version: 1.4.4-4 Severity: important Hi, jikes is orphaned, unmaintained, and buggy and therefore we are trying to remove it from the archive. xerces-j currently build-depends on jikes. Could you please try to build with one of the other java compilers and remove the jikes build-depends? I've tried it with openjdk-6-jdk and it seems to work fairly well but does still have some issues. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
