Bug#984497: python-cython-blis package
On Fri, 2021-03-05 at 16:52 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Finally the license statement is all about redistribution ... and > than upstream says: Do not redistribute. They appear to be fine with redistribution, just not with wide distribution by a popular Linux distribution, which has a stable release that is guaranteed to get out of date with documentation. Possibly they could be convinced by having the package only available in Debian unstable or experimental and guaranteeing to keep it up to date with the latest available upstream version. On the other hand they probably also don't want to deal with bug reports about a build that they did not produce. Perhaps the right way is for Debian to distribute ExplosionAI software under different names with all documentation pointing at Debian to avoid upstream having to deal with bug reports from Debian users. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#984497: python-cython-blis package
On 2021-03-05 16:52, Andreas Tille wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 09:52:47AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: It seems unlikely that upstream will have changed their mind, it was only a few months ago when we had the discussion with them. I intend to draw it into a different audience[1] but not in the next week where I'm busy with real life issues. Finally the license statement is all about redistribution ... and than upstream says: Do not redistribute. This sounds not very convincing to me and I would like to ask for technical reasons this opinion might be based upon. But I would prefer to discuss this in the ITP (in CC and Reply-to set) to have a single point of discussion for this issue. The way I read the upstream developer's comments, it wasn't a technical objection. It was just a social objection: upstream does not want to be bothered with reports of problems arising from different versions (including different linked libraries) other than the versions that they had built themselves. So there's no legal (or technical) reason to not package, just the social reason that doing so will gain the ire of the author. There is precedence: the author of cdrtools was extremely hostile to packaging, https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg00113.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg00320.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg00653.html Eventually we had to just drop cdrtools (and consequently xcdroast) https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg00775.html Drew
Bug#984497: python-cython-blis package
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 09:52:47AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > It seems unlikely that upstream will have changed their mind, it > was only a few months ago when we had the discussion with them. I intend to draw it into a different audience[1] but not in the next week where I'm busy with real life issues. Finally the license statement is all about redistribution ... and than upstream says: Do not redistribute. This sounds not very convincing to me and I would like to ask for technical reasons this opinion might be based upon. But I would prefer to discuss this in the ITP (in CC and Reply-to set) to have a single point of discussion for this issue. Thanks a lot for your opinion anyway. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2021/03/msg00049.html -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#984497: python-cython-blis package
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 08:09 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > I also intend to negotiate this again. While the copyright holders > are > > 2018 The University of Texas at Austin > 2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP > 2018 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. > 2019 ExplosionAI GmbH Part of the code in cython-blis comes from src:blis https://github.com/flame/blis And the copyright holders are largely inherited from src:blis > the discussion was done with a single developer - well, looking at > the That single developer is a core contributor of the spaCy stack, and a core member of "2019 ExplosionAI GmbH" IIRC
Bug#984497: python-cython-blis package
Hi Mo and Paul, On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 02:31:19PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 06:21 +, M. Zhou wrote: > > > the upstream holds a very negative attitude towards debian packaging. > > https://github.com/explosion/cython-blis/issues/32 > > I suggest you cease packaging this and anything that depends on it. > > The developers reference mentions that packaging software with hostile > upstream developers is often not a good idea. > > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/developer-duties.en.html#coordination-with-upstream-developers > >"If you find that the upstream developers are or become hostile >towards Debian or the free software community, you may want to >re-consider the need to include the software in Debian. Sometimes >the social cost to the Debian community is not worth the benefits >the software may bring." I think I will open an ITP for this package where we gather this information (I can bounce your mails to the ITP bug once filed if you do not want to write this again). This way we can document the issue. I also intend to negotiate this again. While the copyright holders are 2018 The University of Texas at Austin 2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP 2018 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 2019 ExplosionAI GmbH the discussion was done with a single developer - well, looking at the contributors graphs its the one with the vast majority of commits in Github. I have not yet experienced this kind of hostility which IMHO even contradicts the license text of the BSD-3-clause license. But well, as I said I'll open an ITP and lets collect all relevant information there. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#984497: python-cython-blis package
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 06:21 +, M. Zhou wrote: > the upstream holds a very negative attitude towards debian packaging. > https://github.com/explosion/cython-blis/issues/32 I suggest you cease packaging this and anything that depends on it. The developers reference mentions that packaging software with hostile upstream developers is often not a good idea. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/developer-duties.en.html#coordination-with-upstream-developers "If you find that the upstream developers are or become hostile towards Debian or the free software community, you may want to re-consider the need to include the software in Debian. Sometimes the social cost to the Debian community is not worth the benefits the software may bring." > CC'ed pabs. Thanks. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#984497: python-cython-blis package
For your information, the upstream holds a very negative attitude towards debian packaging. https://github.com/explosion/cython-blis/issues/32 CC'ed pabs. On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 17:51 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:26:11PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote: > > > > Andreas Tille writes: > > > > > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian-science/python-cython-blis > > > > Hi, > > > > I think this is a typo. It should be > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/python-cython-blis > > > > right? > > Sure. Please always watch me closely. ;-) > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > >
