Bug#984689: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 02:50:18PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > > On 2021, മാർച്ച് 8 1:24:48 AM IST, Antonio Terceiro > wrote: [...] > >I don't think that will be needed. I reverted to 5.0.0 locally, added a > >few patches, and at least all of our reverse dependencies seem to pass > >their tests with it: > > > > > >= Testing reverse (build) dependencies > > > > > >rebuild nanoc ... PASS > >rebuild ruby-coveralls ... PASS > >autopkgtest ruby-faraday... PASS > >rebuild ruby-graphlient ... PASS > >rebuild ruby-mixlib-install ... PASS > >rebuild ruby-octokit... PASS > > > >So in principle we could fix this issue without touching anything else. > > Thanks. Are you waiting for an ack from release team to upload it? No, I will upload it soon™. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#984689: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)
On 2021, മാർച്ച് 8 1:24:48 AM IST, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 11:01:16PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> [adding release team] >> >> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:49 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >> > Hi Praveen, >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Pirate Praveen >> > wrote: >> > > It looks like we will have to remove ruby-vcr and we will have to >> > > disable tests for the following packages. I don't think there is >> > > another way, thoughts? >> > >> > Maybe worth opening an issue upstream and discuss the cons of this >> > change or something? Or if that doesn't work out >> > and we need this >> >> I doubt discussing with upstream will yield any possitive outcome as this is >> a specific philosophical movement. >> >> See https://github.com/vcr/vcr/pull/792 >> and >> https://github.com/vcr/vcr/issues/804 >> >> > package or something, would forking be an option? >> >> https://github.com/vcr/vcr/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#510-feb-5-2020 >> >> We will have to go back to 5.0 and someone will have to maintain it >> independently. >> >> Hi Release team, >> >> Do you think this needs to be fixed before bullseye? If yes, do you agree to >> change the reverse dependencies listed in my previous message to this bug? > >I don't think that will be needed. I reverted to 5.0.0 locally, added a >few patches, and at least all of our reverse dependencies seem to pass >their tests with it: > > >= Testing reverse (build) dependencies > > >rebuild nanoc ... PASS >rebuild ruby-coveralls ... PASS >autopkgtest ruby-faraday... PASS >rebuild ruby-graphlient ... PASS >rebuild ruby-mixlib-install ... PASS >rebuild ruby-octokit... PASS > >So in principle we could fix this issue without touching anything else. Thanks. Are you waiting for an ack from release team to upload it? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#984689: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)
On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 11:01:16PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > [adding release team] > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:49 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > > Hi Praveen, > > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Pirate Praveen > > wrote: > > > It looks like we will have to remove ruby-vcr and we will have to > > > disable tests for the following packages. I don't think there is > > > another way, thoughts? > > > > Maybe worth opening an issue upstream and discuss the cons of this > > change or something? Or if that doesn't work out > > and we need this > > I doubt discussing with upstream will yield any possitive outcome as this is > a specific philosophical movement. > > See https://github.com/vcr/vcr/pull/792 > and > https://github.com/vcr/vcr/issues/804 > > > package or something, would forking be an option? > > https://github.com/vcr/vcr/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#510-feb-5-2020 > > We will have to go back to 5.0 and someone will have to maintain it > independently. > > Hi Release team, > > Do you think this needs to be fixed before bullseye? If yes, do you agree to > change the reverse dependencies listed in my previous message to this bug? I don't think that will be needed. I reverted to 5.0.0 locally, added a few patches, and at least all of our reverse dependencies seem to pass their tests with it: = Testing reverse (build) dependencies rebuild nanoc ... PASS rebuild ruby-coveralls ... PASS autopkgtest ruby-faraday... PASS rebuild ruby-graphlient ... PASS rebuild ruby-mixlib-install ... PASS rebuild ruby-octokit... PASS So in principle we could fix this issue without touching anything else. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#984689: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)
[adding release team] On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:49 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: Hi Praveen, On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: It looks like we will have to remove ruby-vcr and we will have to disable tests for the following packages. I don't think there is another way, thoughts? Maybe worth opening an issue upstream and discuss the cons of this change or something? Or if that doesn't work out and we need this I doubt discussing with upstream will yield any possitive outcome as this is a specific philosophical movement. See https://github.com/vcr/vcr/pull/792 and https://github.com/vcr/vcr/issues/804 package or something, would forking be an option? https://github.com/vcr/vcr/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#510-feb-5-2020 We will have to go back to 5.0 and someone will have to maintain it independently. Hi Release team, Do you think this needs to be fixed before bullseye? If yes, do you agree to change the reverse dependencies listed in my previous message to this bug? Thanks Praveen
Bug#984689: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:49 PM Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Pirate Praveen > wrote: > > It looks like we will have to remove ruby-vcr and we will have to > > disable tests for the following packages. I don't think there is > > another way, thoughts? > > Maybe worth opening an issue upstream and discuss the cons of this > change or something? Or if that doesn't work out and we need this > package or something, would forking be an option? It looks like they just upgraded to the latest version of the license they were previously using; cf: https://github.com/vcr/vcr/pull/813. I didn't read the license but is it realy a problem? If it is, I know Olle (the upstream dev), maybe we can talk this out and they can revert to the previous version of the license. - u
Bug#984689: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)
Hi Praveen, On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: > It looks like we will have to remove ruby-vcr and we will have to > disable tests for the following packages. I don't think there is > another way, thoughts? Maybe worth opening an issue upstream and discuss the cons of this change or something? Or if that doesn't work out and we need this package or something, would forking be an option? - u
Bug#984689: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)
It looks like we will have to remove ruby-vcr and we will have to disable tests for the following packages. I don't think there is another way, thoughts? No reverse dependencies. reverse-depends -b ruby-vcr Reverse-Build-Depends * nanoc * ruby-coveralls * ruby-graphlient * ruby-mixlib-install * ruby-octokit
Bug#984689: ruby-vcr: DFSG violation (Hippocratic license)
Package: ruby-vcr Version: 6.0.0-2 Severity: serious Dear Maintainer, ruby-vcr license has been changed to The Hippocaratic License since versoin 5.1. I think it is not DFSG compliant. -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU threads) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN Locale: LANG=ja_JP.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ja_JP.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=ja_JP.UTF-8 Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled -- no debconf information
