Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061010 20:02]: >> this is an other incarnation of the pgf bug I just wrote about. The >> very same non-free logos are included in the beamer orig.tar.gz, and >> likewise it's license oscillated between GPL and LPPL and will be >> settled by a new upstream version with no release schedule... > > Can you please summarize with RC-bugs are justified with etch-ignore, > and for what reason? I lost track.
No wonder. The BTS also lost track, both because it was slower than expected (and processed some bug splitting only after the bug was closed by my NMU, although I'd sent the control message much earlier), and maybe because one control message never was sent. So I've cleaned that up now, and we have: - two packages, pgf and latex-beamer. Both are by the same upstream author, and probably evolved from a common source. - both had RC bugs filed by me which turned out to be two separate bugs each. Now we have the following bugs: #364749 on pgf: Unclear license statement: LPPL or GPL? OPEN #392612 on pgf: Includes non-free files CLOSED #392154 on latex-beamer: Unclear license statement: LPPL or GPL? OPEN #364127 on latex-beamer: contains non-free logos FIXED in NMU The two that are still open mean: The documentation of each package says that the package is released under GPL, but there's no manifest file or similar, and many files have a LPPL header. The author of the packages has stated (see the bug logs) that the LPPL header is a historical thing and that he'll clean up the license statement in a future release. However, the next pgf release, although scheduled for mid October, won't be a real stable release and is therefore not appropriate for etch, and for latex-beamer there's no release schedule even. Therefore I request to set the sarge-ignore tags on both bugs that are still open. Thanks in advance, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)