virtuoso-opensource DFSG changes

[Will Daniels]

Hi Arthur,

Yes it's all there - thanks! Sorry I should have spotted that.

I'm just keeping my git repo on Assembla[1] for now because I can't
quite get on with crossing git and bazaar all the time for launchpad.
Maybe you will be able to pull some stuff though I'm not 100% sure what
I'm doing most of the time :S I'll post to here if I find/fix anything
significant.

Fortunately launchpad can build with quilt now beginning the lucid
series, so binary packages should become available there[2] for any
Ubuntu people interested (NB: 6.0.1rc1 built but not yet tested). I
think there is another virtuoso package going into Ubuntu 10.4 but it
claims to be "low quality" and temporary pending the Debian one
(presumably this) so I have not looked at it.

Seems many of the current patches can be dropped for 6.1.0 but looks
like the OAT patch in crypto.js will need updating and I haven't exactly
figured out what it's all about yet. I can't find any bug record on
sf.net to help there, is there some discussion I can reference?

Are we (read: you) planning to worry about upgrading pre-6.x or early
6.x databases at this point? I could probably handle that much if
anybody's actually using the package already...

Cheers,
Will

[1] http://code.assembla.com/virtuoso
    git at git.assembla.com:virtuoso.git

[2] http://launchpad.net/~wdaniels/+archive/virtuoso


Obey Arthur Liu wrote:
> [+pkg-virtuoso-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
> <mailto:pkg-virtuoso-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>]
> 
> Hi Will!
> 
> I pointed out the various licensing problems to upstream on
> virtuoso-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:virtuoso-devel at lists.sourceforge.net>
> (https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/virtuoso-devel) and they
> fixed almost all of it.
> Most mails have been cc'ed
> to http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-virtuoso-maintainers
> so you can look them up there.
> 
> I think rationales for all cases you cited were provided in various
> mails to upstream. Tell me if there's something missing.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Arthur
> 
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Will Daniels <mail at willdaniels.co.uk
> <mailto:mail at willdaniels.co.uk>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Arthur,
> 
>     I was just looking at updating subject packaging project to the new
>     upstream version and I hope you don't mind me asking some probably
>     obvious questions about the DFSG changes so that I can learn more about
>     that process:
> 
>      * Removal of dll and jar files I understand.
> 
>      * Removal of zlib, pcrelib (and I think also the DocBook XSL
>     stylesheets) I assume is just in favour of external packages.
> 
>      * Removal of the CalendarPopup.js seems to make sense because even I
>     can see incompatible restrictions in the license, and this has been
>     removed from upstream sources now it seems.
> 
>      * I did not bother to look at all at appsrc/ODS-Framework/rte,
>     binsrc/yacutia/ie7, binsrc/samples/TPC-W/ or binsrc/oat/toolkit since
>     they no longer appear to be distributed in the upstream sources either.
> 
>     The one I'm unsure about is appsrc/ODS-Wiki. Can you please tell me why
>     that was removed for DFSG?
> 
>     I have read the DFSG bullet points under the Debian Social Contract, but
>     are there any more detailed guides or tools that people use in applying
>     the guidelines in packaging? Or do you just go through the entire source
>     manually and check licenses on everything?
> 
>     Also have you been communicating with OpenLink on some of these points
>     or was it coincidence that they seem to have removed much of the
>     offending code?
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Will
> 
> 
>