Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

[Frank Stähr]

control: tags -1 - moreinfo


Hello again!


Am 20.06.2016 um 13:08 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:

you gave me a good answer here, so, please add it again then (libboost-dev is 
fine
in this case!)


Ok.



There is a good reason, but I see that it is unnecessarily tortuous to
do so. That’s why everything under GPL-2+ now.



if you provide an explanation I can accept it, this is not about you being wrong
and me being right, it is about discussion and accept a common point of view :)


as I did above, I accepted your explanation and asked to restore your solution


Don’t worry, I didn’t feel urged to do so. As I said, I recently came to 
the conclusion that several copyrights instead of only one are 
unnecessarily tortuous.
(If you are interested: I originally wanted my Makefile not to be GPL so 
that others could use it absolutly free for their project. But in fact 
this Makefile is not so “brilliant” and that’s why it’s not worth the 
effort.)




we are talking about copyright in upstream tarball.
I can understand a symlink in debian/copyright, but shouldn't the upstream 
tarball
have a LICENSE file explaining the license text?


Ok.



I guess we are mostly ready now!


I hope everything is ok now.
Review is waiting for you!

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi,

 Il Sabato 18 Giugno 2016 21:45, Frank Stähr  ha scritto:

>I think we are nearly ready, don’t give up.


I *never* give up :)
>Nevertheless, I don’t see why e. g. boost/algorithm/string/trim.hpp is 
>guaranteed to be installed. It might be a coincidence that it is 
>included by regex or program-options. In my case e. g. libboost1.58-dev 
>was automatically installed together with regex/program-options.
>(But you do not need to explain. I just wanted to exclude an error.)


you gave me a good answer here, so, please add it again then (libboost-dev is 
fine
in this case!)

grep boost . -R |grep include
./src/main.cpp:#include 
./src/main.cpp:#include 
./src/main.cpp:#include 
./src/main.cpp:#include 
./src/main.cpp:#include 



seems also available in boost1.60
>There is a good reason, but I see that it is unnecessarily tortuous to 
>do so. That’s why everything under GPL-2+ now.


if you provide an explanation I can accept it, this is not about you being wrong
and me being right, it is about discussion and accept a common point of view :)


as I did above, I accepted your explanation and asked to restore your solution

>Really?
> says, 
>common licenses may just be refered.


we are talking about copyright in upstream tarball.
I can understand a symlink in debian/copyright, but shouldn't the upstream 
tarball
have a LICENSE file explaining the license text?
https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
>Thx for all the work and your patience,

thanks for the followup :)


I guess we are mostly ready now!

G.

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

[Frank Stähr]

Hello Gianfranco,

I think we are nearly ready, don’t give up.


Am 20.05.2016 um 21:59 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:

I deleted the dependence libboost-dev as suggested, ALTHOUGH I am not
sure if that is correct.
The documentation just says “This package provides headers.” Besides
regex and program-options I indeed need some other headers and now I
don’t know if these are installed for sure.



each sublibrary has its headers and its libraries, so you need just the minimum 
set
needed.


Nevertheless, I don’t see why e. g. boost/algorithm/string/trim.hpp is 
guaranteed to be installed. It might be a coincidence that it is 
included by regex or program-options. In my case e. g. libboost1.58-dev 
was automatically installed together with regex/program-options.

(But you do not need to explain. I just wanted to exclude an error.)



Changed the text according to the examples.



I still don't get why having two licenses.


There is a good reason, but I see that it is unnecessarily tortuous to 
do so. That’s why everything under GPL-2+ now.




you need a LICENSE file inside your tarball, with the license text inside,
otherwise the package will be probably rejected.


Really?
 says, 
common licenses may just be refered.




(BTW std-version is 3.9.8 now)


Ok.


Thx for all the work and your patience,
Frank

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

(stripping -mentors, adding the bug to the cc list)



(another mail where I did send commands to the BTS interface weren't intended 
to you)


if you care to learn...
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
>I resent the RFS mail to sub...@bugs.debian.org. This time the subject 

>was simply "RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]" instead of "Bug#813485: RFS: 
>setop/0.1-1 [ITP]". Perhaps that was the problem.


yes, as Mattia said to me, starting with Bug: means that this is a followup 
to a current
bug so submit won't open a new one.


>I deleted the dependence libboost-dev as suggested, ALTHOUGH I am not 
>sure if that is correct.
>The documentation just says “This package provides headers.” Besides 
>regex and program-options I indeed need some other headers and now I 
>don’t know if these are installed for sure.


each sublibrary has its headers and its libraries, so you need just the minimum 
set
needed.
(pbuilder is happy on a clean environment)

>Changed the text according to the examples.


I still don't get why having two licenses.
you need a LICENSE file inside your tarball, with the license text inside,
otherwise the package will be probably rejected.

and it is fine to have *everything* under GPL-2+


>You were right: not having any releases yields in an error. I created 
>one for testing, and everything is ok now.


wonderful!

please let me know!
(BTW std-version is 3.9.8 now)

G.

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo

that one is good.

So, please ping me and remove the moreinfo tag when you fixed the issues 
pointed on -mentors mail list!

thanks

G.




Il Lunedì 16 Maggio 2016 13:02, Frank Stähr  ha scritto:
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist


Dear mentors,


I am looking for a sponsor for my package "setop":

  * Package name: setop
Version : 0.1-1
Upstream Author : Frank Stähr
  * URL : 
  * License : GPL-2+
Section : utils


This mail is just for administration, as my last try didn’t open an RFS bug.

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

[Frank Stähr]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist


Dear mentors,


I am looking for a sponsor for my package "setop":

 * Package name: setop
   Version : 0.1-1
   Upstream Author : Frank Stähr
 * URL : 
 * License : GPL-2+
   Section : utils


This mail is just for administration, as my last try didn’t open an RFS bug.