Hi Roger, On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:36:22PM +0200, Roger Bivand wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > This isn't a patch to my spdep/inst/README file.
No, it's not! :-) > I have no knowledge > of any debian/copyright file, and cannot take responsibility for > that This was never intended - it was just for our ftpmasters because its their responsibility to verify the copyright + license of each file we want to upload. Sorry if this was confusing. > (I don't think installing from source is a problem for > non-OSX/Windows users; I do not use Debian systems, and do not know > anything about their packaging systems other than very bad > experiences with people with messed up GIS packages). If you want me > to patch anything, diff from spdep/inst/README on R-forge. In > particular: > > Copyright: 2005 Yongwan Chun, Michael Tiefelsdorf and Roger Bivand > License: GPL-2+ > > looks very wrong. Well, the line above this was Files: R/SpatialFiltering.R in front of the Copyright/License paragraph. We need to list all explicite Copyright statement inside the code. I can not see in how far this should be in conflict with your spdep/DESCRIPTION file. > The list of contributors is in spdep/DESCRIPTION > in R standard parsable form; > > +Files: R/bptest.sarlm.R > +Copyright: 1998 Joseph O'Rourke <orou...@cs.smith.edu> > > isn't the correct file - should be src/soigraph.c. Uhhmmm, perhaps I misinterpretet your first answer. We have to troublesome files. Would you please consider reading the original mail here: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/2014-July/026470.html > I'd be grateful if you'd run any (unneeded) copyright file by me > before proceeding. I hope not to do any unneeded work. The Debian copyright file is required for any Debian package and you can have a look here: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-science/packages/R/r-cran-spdep/trunk/debian/copyright?view=markup I'd be more than happy if you could clarify the open issues for the two files src/soigraph.c R/bptest.sarlm.R in a format like this. > If such a file is needed, it should only point to > the correct file within the R package (otherwise they will get out > of sync). Since we are packaging more than R packages in Debian we can not drop this general requirement and we need to stick to the given format. I agree that keeping these files in sync is a bit troublesome but I have no choice but providing such a file (which works for >500 R packages in Debian). > As you can see, the "decision" of a "master" is of very little use s/master/ftpmaster/ = the gate keeper of the Debian package pool. > to me, I'll humour your attempts if you do things right, but have no > need to see spdep distributed in this way - Debian users should IMO > always install R packages from source to avoid unintended > incompatibilities. The rationale why I intend to package spdep is that we have a certain set of R packages packaged for Debian for very good reasons and now it turned out that spdep is used as a new dependency to run a test suite of some other packages. To make sure we will not have any incompatibilities we really want to run the test suite - thus I need to provide a spdep Debian package. I'm aware that there are people who consider Debian packages of R packages useless but as you probably also know there are varying opinions about this and I'm just doing it as a service request of some users (and not because I have no better clue how to spend my spare time ;-)). > Best wishes, Same to you and sorry for the confusion I might have created Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
