Ping, I really need the help of testers for the new glam packages I uploaded for review here
http://blends.debian.net/tmp/packages/glam2/ Any opinion would be very welcome. Kind regards Andreas. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 04:45:55PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > [original discussion on developer list on alioth - since it is down > I "misuse" this list] > > Hi, > > in the past we had some positive feedback from meme authors (not only > the one below also others - searchable once alioth might be back) to use > the glam2 copy inside Debian under the old PD license. Since I'm doing > a "month of upgrading of packages not touched >3 years" currently I > stumbled upon glam2 and was giving it a try. You can see my preliminary > work here: > > http://blends.debian.net/tmp/packages/glam2/ > > The reason why I'm publishing this here is, that alioth is down but also > that I want to hear opinions first. > > 1. I have choosen the same version number as meme (using epoch in > changelog) > 2. I have used enhanced uscan[1] to strip everything that is not > needed. > 3. I droped some makefile and missing files I kept from old glam2 > packages into debian/ dir > 4. glam2-purge is lost. > > The thing is that unfortunately some files from main meme, namely > > alphabet.[ch] > array.[ch] > array-list.[ch] > binary-search.[ch] > ceqlogo.[ch] > eps2png.[ch] > hash_alph.h > io.[ch] > macros.h > matrix.[ch] > motif.[ch] > motif-in-flags.h > motif-in.h > motif-spec.h > red-black-tree.[ch] > regex-utils.[ch] > string-builder.[ch] > string-list.h > user.h > utils.[ch] > > (see debian/README.source). > > So before we could distribute the given orig.tar.xz tarball we need to > ask upstream whether they might extend the permission to use a free > license also to these files which are actually some general utilities > and surely not the main part of MEME itself. > > Even if I see good chances that upstream will agree here I would like > you to run some tests (perhaps even write some test case) whether the > new code really behaves like the old one. Otherwise I do not think that > it is worth the trouble to start a licensing discussion and we might > rather stick to the old code. > > I also wonder whether there is any need for glam2-purge which was not > taken over by the MEME project. If it is needed the issue is quite > simple and we could create a separate package since the code remains > freely available anyway. > > The next step would be to pick up the meme packaging for non-free and > just leave out the glam2 binaries for the installation. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Timothy Bailey wrote: > > James, > > > > On 28/02/13 11:09 AM, James Johnson wrote: > > >Hi Tim, > > > > > >On 28/02/13 11:05, Timothy Bailey wrote: > > >>David, > > >> > > >>I assume the most important thing is that the copyright and "for > > >>non-profit use only" > > >>warning is included in the Debian repackaging. If those are > > >>preserved, I'm happy. > > >If you refer to the original email, that's exactly what they were > > >hoping to avoid. GLAM2 has a more permissive license than the MEME > > >Suite. The reason they want to keep the 2 packages is so that > > >people can use GLAM2 under the more permissive license... They > > >were hoping to back-port any improvements to GLAM2 while keeping > > >its original license. > > > > Sorry about the confusion I may have called. I am completely happy > > to have them > > back-port changes from MEME Suite Glam2 to stand-alone Glam2. The Glam2 > > license can remain as before. > > > > My earlier comment referred to the Debian port of MEME Suite, not > > stand-alone Glam2. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tim > > > > > >~James > > >> > > >>Cheers, > > >> > > >>Tim > > >>On 28/02/13 2:07 AM, Gibbons, David wrote: > > >>> > > >>>Hi Tim, > > >>> > > >>>My only concern would be that we not create any conflict with > > >>>the arrangement we have between the University of Washington, > > >>>UC San Diego and the University of Queensland regarding The > > >>>Meme Suite. The technical compatibilities of the various > > >>>versions are outside of my scope, but as long as we are not > > >>>deviating from the agreement between our institutions, I have > > >>>no issues with the request. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Thanks for copying me. > > >>> > > >>>Dave > > >>> > > >>>David G. Gibbons, PE, MBA > > >>> > > >>>Assistant Director > > >>> > > >>>Physical Sciences Licensing > > >>> > > >>>Technology Transfer Office, UC San Diego > > >>> > > >>>9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0910 > > >>> > > >>>La Jolla, CA 92093-0910 > > >>> > > >>>(858)534-0175 > > >>> > > >>>[email protected] > > >>> > > >>>http://invent.ucsd.edu > > >>> > > >>>*From:*Timothy Bailey [mailto:[email protected]] > > >>>*Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:13 AM > > >>>*To:* James Johnson > > >>>*Cc:* Gibbons, David; Martin Frith; MEME Support; Debian Med > > >>>Packaging Team > > >>>*Subject:* Re: Fwd: Re: [[email protected]: Re: > > >>>Installation of binary tools inside MEME] > > >>> > > >>>James, > > >>> > > >>>On 18/02/13 11:51 AM, James Johnson wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Tim, Dave, > > >>> > > >>> The Debian Med Packaging Team want to know if they can backport > > >>> GLAM2 improvements (presuming there are any?) in the MEME Suite > > >>> to the more permissively licensed GLAM2 repository? > > >>> > > >>>I have no problems with this as long as they do the work. > > >>> > > >>>However, that will mean that the Debian version of Glam2 > > >>>differs from the "standalone" version > > >>>Martin created. It will match the "MEME Suite" version, though. > > >>> > > >>>Cheers, > > >>> > > >>>Tim > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>~James > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>-------- Original Message -------- > > >>> > > >>>*Subject: * > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: [[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>: > > >>>Re: Installation of binary tools inside MEME] > > >>> > > >>>*Date: * > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:04:58 +0000 > > >>> > > >>>*From: * > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Tim Booth <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > >>> > > >>>*To: * > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Andreas Tille <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > >>> > > >>>*CC: * > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Debian Med Packaging Team > > >>><[email protected]> > > >>><mailto:[email protected]>, James > > >>>Johnson <[email protected]> > > >>><mailto:[email protected]> > > >>> > > >>>Hi, > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 06:08:08PM +0000, Tim Booth wrote: > > >>>> > Yes, I did start looking at Meme but quickly realised it was a lot > > >>>> > more > > >>>> > work than I thought to do a proper job on it. I think all I wanted > > >>>> > to > > >>>> > do in the first instance was to get an updated glam2 binary package > > >>>> > based upon the improved glam2 source within the meme code. I guess > > >>>> > this > > >>>> > is now the definitive glam2 as the original standalone source hasn't > > >>>> > been updated since 2008. > > >>>> > > >>>> We might try to do some comparison. Charles previously mentioned that > > >>>> we should keep the glam2 package from Debian which is free (PD) and > > >>>> meme > > >>>> currently has a non-free license (according to DFSG). So if glam2 > > >>>> inside > > >>>> meme is basically unchanged it might be reasonable to ignore the code > > >>>> inside meme (or asking upstream for permission to backport the > > >>>> changes.) > > >>>A quick "diff" across the original glam2 vs. the meme glam2 suggests > > >>>that several new options have been added for meme - see > > >>>src/glam2_args.c. > > >>>I would imagine that scripts within meme rely on these options. In > > >>>fact, a quick grepping shows that scripts/glam2_webservice.pl.in calls > > >>>"glam2 -M" which is an option added for meme. I've not looked for other > > >>>examples. > > >>>I hope that upstream can at least be persuaded to put their changes to > > >>>glam2 under a free license like the original glam2. They may not be > > >>>legally bound to do so but it would be highly disingenuous of them to > > >>>refuse. > > >>>Cheers, > > >>>TIM > > >>>-- > > >>>If you can't find an apposite quote for your sig, just make one up. > > >>> - Anon > > >>> > > >>>-- > > >>> > > >>>Timothy L. Bailey > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > >>> > > >>>Institute for Molecular Bioscience > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>VOICE: (61)-(7)-3346-2614 > > >>> > > >>>The University of Queensland > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>FAX: (61)-(7)-3346-2101 > > >>> > > >>>Brisbane, Qld. 4072 Australia > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>http://research.imb.uq.edu.au/~tbailey > > >>><http://research.imb.uq.edu.au/%7Etbailey> > > >>> > > >> > > >>-- > > >>Timothy L. Bailey > > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > >>Institute for Molecular Bioscience > > >> VOICE: (61)-(7)-3346-2614 > > >>The University of Queensland > > >> FAX: (61)-(7)-3346-2101 > > >>Brisbane, Qld. 4072 Australia > > >> http://research.imb.uq.edu.au/~tbailey > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Timothy L. Bailey > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Institute for Molecular Bioscience > > VOICE: (61)-(7)-3346-2614 > > The University of Queensland > > FAX: (61)-(7)-3346-2101 > > Brisbane, Qld. 4072 Australia > > http://research.imb.uq.edu.au/~tbailey > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Debian-med-packaging mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging > > > -- > http://fam-tille.de > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] > > -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
