Bug#1028921: RFS: pvm/3.4.6-5 [QA] -- Parallel Virtual Machine - binaries
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pvm": * Package name : pvm Version : 3.4.6-5 Upstream contact : [fill in name and email of upstream] * URL : https://www.csm.ornl.gov/pvm/ * License : [fill in] * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/pvm Section : devel The source builds the following binary packages: pvm - Parallel Virtual Machine - binaries pvm-dev - Parallel Virtual Machine - development files libpvm3 - Parallel Virtual Machine - shared libraries pvm-examples - Parallel Virtual Machine - examples To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/pvm/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pvm/pvm_3.4.6-5.dsc Changes since the last upload: pvm (3.4.6-5) unstable; urgency=medium . * QA upload. . * Fix ftbfs on riscv64. (Closes: #1015924) * Set std ver to 4.6.2 -- The packages or its binary package is B-D for netpipe-pvm and tablix2, so I think it make sense here, thanks. -- Regards, -- Bo YU signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1028423: RFS: spek/0.8.5-1 [ITP] [RC] -- acoustic spectrum analyser
Hi Matteo, Please address the following things and then I am going to sponsor spek: Exclude the dist and web directories. There are several non-source files and files where the license is not clear. This means introducing a Files-Excluded in debian/copyright and a repacksuffix in the watch file and in the changelog. Please also exclude the lic directory (you can leave lic/GPL if you like) because those 3rd party licenses are not applicable to spek itself but Debian Policy would require you to copy them to d/copyright if you kept them. The copyright for * has to be completed: Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Alexander Kojevnikov and contributors I guess the src/spek-pipeline.c copyright stems from upstream's debianization. On completing the general copyright you can drop that copyright paragraph because those copyrights are not explicitly mentioned (anymore). In po/* there are several files mentioning Copyright (C) YEAR The Spek authors Even if that stems from a template, you have to copy this as-is. There is no point in keeping Debian's spek.xpm and spek.install files after dropping the spek.menu file. Please create a desktop file instead that refernces upstream's .svg. Please drop debian/autoreconf.*. There is not a high chance of this to enter bookworm. But if you are very quick (< 1 week) with those changes maybe we and FTP Master can make it happen. Cheers, Bastian
Bug#1028529: RFS: libfilezilla/0.41.0-1 -- build high-performing platform-independent programs (runtime lib)
On Sat, 2023-01-14 at 16:48 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 05:15:29AM +, Philip Wyett wrote: > > I thought any change to push soname bumps through experimental was still > > only a discussion? > > > > As you are aware, libfilezilla is only consumed by filezilla and any > > soname bumps are not dangerous to other libaries or applications. Could > > this change pass through directly to unstable if I modify the changelog to > > state this fact? > > I think so, yeah. > > > Meow! Hi, I have updated the upload to mentors with the following changelog entry: libfilezilla (0.41.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream version 0.41.0 * Soname bump rename package to libfilezilla34 - Only additions to API in this release - Only consumed by filezilla, so low risk soname bump I hope this this will be enough to allow for sponsorship and a direct upload to unstable. Regards Phil -- *** Playing the game for the games own sake. *** Associations: * Debian Maintainer (DM) * Fedora/EPEL Maintainer. * Contributor member of the AlmaLinux foundation. WWW: https://kathenas.org Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg Twitter: @kathenasorg Instagram: @kathenasorg IRC: kathenas GPG: 724AA9B52F024C8B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1028529: RFS: libfilezilla/0.41.0-1 -- build high-performing platform-independent programs (runtime lib)
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 05:15:29AM +, Philip Wyett wrote: > I thought any change to push soname bumps through experimental was still only > a discussion? > > As you are aware, libfilezilla is only consumed by filezilla and any > soname bumps are not dangerous to other libaries or applications. Could > this change pass through directly to unstable if I modify the changelog to > state this fact? I think so, yeah. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Quis trollabit ipsos trollos? ⠈⠳⣄
Bug#1025274: License question about sf2 soundfont in Tuxguitar
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 11:02:46AM +0100, Helmar Gerloni wrote: > Hello legal team, > > I am trying to update the Tuxguitar package from version 1.2 to 1.5.6. > > The new version includes the soundfont "Magic Sound Font v2.0". While > Tuxguitar is licensed under LGPL-2.1+, the license of the soundfont file > (MagicSFver2.sf2) is not 100% clear. > > The issue was discussed in > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819332 > https://sourceforge.net/p/tuxguitar/support-requests/13/ > > In the SF ticket, the Tuxguitar author states that the author of the > soundfont, Dennis, "allowed us redistribute the soundfont with tuxguitar". I > tried to email Dennis to ask about the license of the soundfont, but did not > receive a reply. > > The soundfont file can also be downloaded as "free soundfont" in the > "Community Audio" collection on archive.org: > > https://archive.org/details/opensource_audio?query=free-soundfonts-sf2-2019-04 > https://archive.org/download/free-soundfonts-sf2-2019-04/MagicSFver2.sf2 > > There are already a few other sf2 soundfonts in Debian. sf2 files can be > edited with open source soundfont editors like Polyphone, so the format > should not be a problem. > > Do you think it is possible to add the file MagicSFver2.sf2 to the Debian > package, maybe under LGPL-2.1+, like the Tuxguitar sources? Or maybe as > "public domain"? Disclaimer: IANAL. I don't think neither of the two is appropiate: - That the upstream author allowed tuxguitar to distribute does not mean it is LGPL. - You cannot claim it is "Public Domain" [2] without the consent of the author, and the link you pasted [1] says that the author "wants some credits", and a Public Domain licenses would allow me to drop those credits. The "Dennis allowed us redistribute the soundfont with tuxguitar" [1] could be a tuxguitar specific license, and only to *distribute*. Unclear if it would apply to us so, but would still be non-free. The "But he never mentioned anything about license" [1] part, could be even a "all rights reservered." otherwise. I would drop the file and ship without if Dennis is not answering. [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/tuxguitar/support-requests/13/ [2] Public Domain has other problems too, especiall outside of the USA. For example, in my country, I could not place my work in "public domain", as my country does not allow me to surrender my own copyright. (any expression of me doing so would just be void). The closest I can get is by using something like CC0. -- tobi
Bug#1028639: marked as done (RFS: sioyek/2.0.0+dfsg-2 -- PDF viewer with a focus on technical books and research papers)
Your message dated Sat, 14 Jan 2023 16:21:26 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: RFS: sioyek/2.0.0+dfsg-2 -- PDF viewer with a focus on technical books and research papers has caused the Debian Bug report #1028639, regarding RFS: sioyek/2.0.0+dfsg-2 -- PDF viewer with a focus on technical books and research papers to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1028639: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1028639 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "sioyek": * Package name : sioyek Version : 2.0.0+dfsg-2 Upstream contact : https://github.com/ahrm/sioyek/issues * URL : https://sioyek.info/ * License : BSL-1.0, GFDL-NIV-1.2+ or CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC-BY-SA-2.5 and CC-BY-SA-2.0 and CC-BY-SA-1.0, GPL-3.0+, forrest-smith-license * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/viccie30/sioyek Section : misc The source builds the following binary packages: sioyek - PDF viewer with a focus on technical books and research papers To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/sioyek/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sioyek/sioyek_2.0.0+dfsg-2.dsc Changes since the last upload: sioyek (2.0.0+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * Forward upstreamable patches upstream. * Do not download intersphinx inventories. * Clean auxiliary files from tutorial build. * Define fallback for GL_CLAMP to fix build on armel. Regards, - -- Victor Westerhuis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQJHBAEBCAAxFiEE6OxII3T+o0Ujs6ECQz2Rq5dHQPsFAmPB+PETHHZpY3RvckB3 ZXN0ZXJodS5pcwAKCRBDPZGrl0dA+7tHD/4xFTDFxvgGmI2pLAl2qzHZRYvfq3ED 0hrsNG2j/a/XtD9NgHD8bK6D0EgGIWZKeYqiFV7eSSilk6FRf59BjvOlZ8oBm6+P wq6dq8trpSDIXMNGZ3FuBP01TmZ9Ah0EBoCBjA5W7d0q8ylj3OJcBmFnuui/tvIx X2saGBmTVsvaLs84sagno2kzc14rHR52fhxP/l84A8HGIvFGdJN2VLqdpx8C+YwL BuLR04dSQs6k2oRIyEc4N7Bq48HeNNZSzA2bZinFw3x1olHH1pGHuKowl6Y26IfJ onRDfhAeaigpwuh7ajSdaZmvbUjgg4z0qBafZrN+xRKVujbASj2xolUNqff13jL8 BqR6Ts0RmR8cxHs8kLtj88kLWU/GE7zLyQ5G26geZJvQNRWse9gmpN0PkvgCafZ1 WK7UackZVNEockbRTpfArqqMYzVN4O7xEDRb6N8S4i3NU3XzA74pNe+mYuqDa0az tJmGINdoXOLlp2zLAi03gHnu4oOaR273ucrCDctYyZb7JjWlc9qhcrGjb+LLAdsy pB32miZspH9uDvPc9JkRZkQBnuLcXpJNSOcdGIs8EMKt02JgsEnSqbHuIKhjXBpZ aV6Si/snPFGTnfygBhX4kVKDFlsmebrGdtWZ83aa2IWrnv49z0rB9LSwO8GYKVgv jT4k0PWpxkftuw== =19Wh -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Thanks for the update.--- End Message ---
Bug#1025274: License question about sf2 soundfont in Tuxguitar
Hello legal team, I am trying to update the Tuxguitar package from version 1.2 to 1.5.6. The new version includes the soundfont "Magic Sound Font v2.0". While Tuxguitar is licensed under LGPL-2.1+, the license of the soundfont file (MagicSFver2.sf2) is not 100% clear. The issue was discussed in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819332 https://sourceforge.net/p/tuxguitar/support-requests/13/ In the SF ticket, the Tuxguitar author states that the author of the soundfont, Dennis, "allowed us redistribute the soundfont with tuxguitar". I tried to email Dennis to ask about the license of the soundfont, but did not receive a reply. The soundfont file can also be downloaded as "free soundfont" in the "Community Audio" collection on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/opensource_audio?query=free-soundfonts-sf2-2019-04 https://archive.org/download/free-soundfonts-sf2-2019-04/MagicSFver2.sf2 There are already a few other sf2 soundfonts in Debian. sf2 files can be edited with open source soundfont editors like Polyphone, so the format should not be a problem. Do you think it is possible to add the file MagicSFver2.sf2 to the Debian package, maybe under LGPL-2.1+, like the Tuxguitar sources? Or maybe as "public domain"? Regards, Helmar.
