Bug#754710: hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use Breaks, ...
Hello Osamu and Andreas. The upstream package has evolved enough that trying to recycle an old DEP5 copyright from a long time ago happened to be not practical. The amount of mismatched copyright years and no longer existing files was quite high. I eventually ended up writing a new file from scratch, but still keeping an eye on your work (which of course I still thank you) to be sure that I did not miss anything important. It has been a tedious task. This is why the bug was stuck for so long. I apologize for this. Writing copyright files has a lot of nuances, and it requires concentration to do it right. Thanks.
Bug#754710: hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use Breaks, ...
Santiago Vila writes ("hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use
Breaks, ..."):
> When switching to DEP5, I also would like to state that the debian/*
> files are in the public domain. Have those files diverged enough from
> their very first original version that I can do that?
>
> I think so, but I'm Cc:ing Ian to be sure (in fact, I approached him
> in Portland about this, maybe he remembers, but then I forgot to ask
> him in a more "official" way, he suggested that a gpg-signed email
> from him saying it's ok would be enough).
Normally I am a very strong proponent of copyleft, but my view is that
Debian packaging files ought always to be permissively licenced.
This is because it's often useful to copy them about between different
packages, perhaps ones with different licences. And the value of
copylefting Debian packaging, in terms of assuring the freedom of
users etc., is quite limited.
So, yes, please consider anything I wrote in debian/ (but not
necessarily d/patches or equivalent, obviously) as very permissively
licenced: CC0 or MIT, at your option, or public domain in
jurisdictionx with such a concept.
Feel free to reference this mail anywhere that seems appropriate.
> However, this does not mean at all that I can't point my git repo to
> your fork and cherry-pick from it. It just means I don't like the MR
> workflow and I also don't think it should be forced on maintainers by
> "group pressure".
The review-in-forge MR workflow has both advantages and disadvantages.
Notably, gitlab is a giant pile of poo[1]. It's such a chame we're
not using forgejo.
So from my point of view your position is very reasonable.
Regards,
Ian.
[1] References available on request.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Bug#754710: hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use Breaks, ...
Hi. I'm comparing the old copyright file from Osamu with yours and found this: -License: GPL-3.0+ +License: GPL-3+ I'm Cc:ing Osamu here as the maintainer of debmake. I asked my LLM of choice and it told me some interesting things, which of course I should take with a grain of salt but it makes sense to me: GPL-3+ is the canonical DEP-5 / Debian shortname. The + suffix is DEP-5's own convention for "or later." This is what the DEP-5 spec itself uses in its examples, and it directly corresponds to the file /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3. GPL-3.0+ comes from the SPDX identifier namespace. Ironically, it's not even the current SPDX form — SPDX deprecated GPL-3.0+ in favour of GPL-3.0-or-later. So GPL-3.0+ is an awkward middle ground: not the Debian native form, and not the current SPDX form either. The question: Is there a reason why debmake -k does not use the short form GPL-3+? What is the preferred license checking/validator program for people who use GPL-3+ in their d/copyright files? Thanks.
Bug#754710: hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use Breaks, ...
Hi Santiago, Am Tue, May 12, 2026 at 11:35:33PM +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila: > On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 10:51:34PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > [...] > > My guess is that the bulk patch was hard to apply. > > You guessed right. Everything mixed did not help. Thanks to the missing Wifi in the trains from Hamburg I was able to spent time on this. ;-) > > where you expressed 3.5 years ago that it is known that there is a new > > upstream version but you do not explain whether this is not packaged > > intentionally. Thus feel free to simply cherry pick from the repository > > above depending from your intention with this package. > > Yes, will do. The reason I've not upgraded to the new version is that > (in addition to such thing not being really urgent) I agree its not urgent and might be even intentional to show how to upgrade a package. > I also wanted to > upgrade the copyright file, which in turn required to split the > changes from Osamu into individual commits. > > Your fork will make this definitely easier, thanks a lot. Happa to help. > When switching to DEP5, I also would like to state that the debian/* > files are in the public domain. Have those files diverged enough from > their very first original version that I can do that? I have no idea but currently these files are not even specified. I simply added a paragraph that took the license from "Files: *". My gut feeling is that previous authors (noticed you added Ian) might be OK with public domain. > I think so, but I'm Cc:ing Ian to be sure (in fact, I approached him > in Portland about this, maybe he remembers, but then I forgot to ask > him in a more "official" way, he suggested that a gpg-signed email > from him saying it's ok would be enough). > > Regarding enabling MRs in hello: Sorry, no, I don't like the MR > workflow for the packages I maintain. OK. Feel free to cherry pick your way. > However, this does not mean at all that I can't point my git repo to > your fork and cherry-pick from it. It just means I don't like the MR > workflow and I also don't think it should be forced on maintainers by > "group pressure". Fine for me. Thank you for your work on hello Andreas. -- https://fam-tille.de
Bug#754710: hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use Breaks, ...
[ dropping #1027032 for simplicity ] On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 10:51:34PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > [...] > My guess is that the bulk patch was hard to apply. You guessed right. Everything mixed did not help. > So I created a fork and pushed > single commits at > >https://salsa.debian.org/tille/hello > > I intended to open a MR but it seems your repository is not configured > for this. I'm also not sure what I should learn from bug > >#1027032: hello: New upstream release 2.12.1 > > where you expressed 3.5 years ago that it is known that there is a new > upstream version but you do not explain whether this is not packaged > intentionally. Thus feel free to simply cherry pick from the repository > above depending from your intention with this package. Yes, will do. The reason I've not upgraded to the new version is that (in addition to such thing not being really urgent) I also wanted to upgrade the copyright file, which in turn required to split the changes from Osamu into individual commits. Your fork will make this definitely easier, thanks a lot. When switching to DEP5, I also would like to state that the debian/* files are in the public domain. Have those files diverged enough from their very first original version that I can do that? I think so, but I'm Cc:ing Ian to be sure (in fact, I approached him in Portland about this, maybe he remembers, but then I forgot to ask him in a more "official" way, he suggested that a gpg-signed email from him saying it's ok would be enough). Regarding enabling MRs in hello: Sorry, no, I don't like the MR workflow for the packages I maintain. However, this does not mean at all that I can't point my git repo to your fork and cherry-pick from it. It just means I don't like the MR workflow and I also don't think it should be forced on maintainers by "group pressure". Thanks.
Bug#754710: hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use Breaks, ...
Sorry that I didn't found the time to reply to this report until now. First of all: A Big Thank You, specially for the copyright file! Working on this now. For the changes that will not be cherrypicked, I will try to post an explanation in this bug report, either before or after upload. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Bug#754710: hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use Breaks, ...
Source: hello Version: 2.9-1 Severity: minor Tags: patch I made a patch to do the following. * Update copyright to DEP-5 format. * Package as multiarch/foreign * Package with dh_autoreconf. * Adjust dependency from Conflicts to Breaks. * Add watch and sig files for the uscan + PGP sig check. First 2 are something everyone agrees. I now know (after making this patch), you do not like dh_autoreconf. dependency change is following the lintian suggestion. I added texinfo as B-D, maybe this was required as a result of dh_autoreconf. I think adding atch and sig file is good improvement. You can cherry-pick what you like :-) debian.tar.xz of my local package attached. -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.14-1-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash hello_2.9-1.1.debian.tar.xz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: Digital signature
