Bug#754310: Urenproducible
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 18:06:20 +0200 Anton Gladky wrote: [...] > Hi, Hello! > > it seems like a bug is pretty old and can loose its relevance. Please > check it with the newest netgen version in sid. On intel-card I am not > able to reproduce it. I gave it a try on three distinct boxes with different Intel graphics. It seems to me that the bug is no longer reproducible. As a consequence, I think this bug report may be safely closed as fixed in netgen/4.9.13.dfsg-10 . Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpVSPz4Av6dk.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: License incompatibility below RC threshold
On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:42:51 + Niels Thykier wrote: ^^^ > Francesco Poli: [...] > > Could someone prod the FTP masters to analyze the issue and provide an > > authoritative statement? > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > > > It seems to me that you just did? Maybe, but, as you can see (please note the above highlighted date), it does not seem to work!:-( I have repeatedly asked the FTP masters to analyze the issue and express their opinion, but I have seen no reply yet. Once again, I urged them to address this issue, but nothing seems to have happened. That's why I asked someone else to prod them: I was hoping to find someone more likely to be listened to... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpEvCKf4tWkf.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#827740: isympy start fails: No module named sympy.interactive
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:06:11 +0200 Alberto Luaces wrote: [...] > Dear Maintainer, Hello, I am not a maintainer of the sympy Debian package (I am just a user), but I feel like commenting your bug report. > > trying to start isympy fails with the error in the subject line. [...] > ii python3-sympy1.0-1 [...] I see that you have python3-sympy installed. What's the output of $ /usr/bin/python --version on your system? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpbmSjoXeL7n.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#827740: isympy start fails: No module named sympy.interactive
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:55:38 +0200 Alberto Luaces wrote: > Francesco Poli writes: [...] > > I see that you have python3-sympy installed. > > > > What's the output of > > > > $ /usr/bin/python --version > > > > on your system? > > $ python -V > Python 2.7.12rc1 > $ python3 -V > Python 3.5.2rc1 Mmmh, then I am under the impression that you should try again after installing python-sympy ... Or otherwise, you could maybe try with the following command (that may be automated with an alias or with a wrapper script...): $ python3 /usr/bin/isympy Please let me know whether this helps you (please Cc me, when replying to the bug address). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpJTP8_kg_uY.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#827740: isympy start fails: No module named sympy.interactive
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:08:28 +0200 Alberto Luaces wrote: > Francesco Poli writes: > > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:55:38 +0200 Alberto Luaces wrote: > > > >> Francesco Poli writes: > > [...] > >> > I see that you have python3-sympy installed. > >> > > >> > What's the output of > >> > > >> > $ /usr/bin/python --version > >> > > >> > on your system? > >> > >> $ python -V > >> Python 2.7.12rc1 > >> $ python3 -V > >> Python 3.5.2rc1 > > > > Mmmh, then I am under the impression that you should try again after > > installing python-sympy ... > > > > The error persists after re-installation. The problem is that the > shebang line of isympy calls /usr/bin/python regardless if python3-sympy > was installed as its dependency. Yes, that's why I suggested you to install python-sympy. You can also keep python3-sympy installed, if you like (in case you want to load the sympy module from python3), but isympy is a script designed to be interpreted by /usr/bin/python, which is Python v2.7.x and not v3.x ... I don't know whether there is an elegant way to make isympy automatically figure out whether you would prefer using python or python3. [...] > > $ python3 /usr/bin/isympy > > Thank you. Of course that works, Good, this is an explicit way to express your preference for python3 over python. > but the bug remains: isympy is that > wrapper script :) Maybe another binary package could be added (named isympy3), including an appropriate isympy3 script... At that point isympy would depend on python-sympy (without python3-sympy as an alternative dependency) and isympy3 would depend on python3-sympy. I don't know, I'll let the sympy maintainers think about it and express their opinion. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgprkxvUsr_OG.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:27:47 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 09/03/14 at 22:26 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote:
[...]
> > (A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
> > re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
>
> Hi Francesco,
Hello Lucas,
thanks for following up on this licensing issue!
I am very glad you stepped in.
>
> Have you tried the above?
Yes, I have, multiple times.
As I said in the original bug report:
| As stated in other bug reports, the best solution is (A). Thus, I renew
| my call for help to push in the direction of {re|dual}-licensing SCOTCH
| under the GNU LGPL v2.1: please see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5
| for the details.
The relevant part of #740463#5 is:
| The best solution is (A): having SCOTCH re-licensed under
| GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms would eliminate all the SCOTCH
| license incompatibility issues.
| Since SCOTCH used to be LGPL-licensed (before switching to CeCILL-C!
| oh nooo!), I got in touch with the main author of SCOTCH
| (François Pellegrini) and tried to persuade him that SCOTCH should
| be re-licensed, in the hope that he would discuss the issue with
| the actual copyright holders (INRIA) and obtain the necessary paperwork.
| I talked to him in 2011, explaining the issue, but I apparently failed
| to convince him that there indeed is an issue.
| I have recently tried again to get in touch with him, but I haven't
| succeeded.
|
| Now I really need your help: please try hard to pursue solution (A).
| Succeeding would solve the issue for elmerfem, but also really benefit
| several other packages which suffer from similar problems with SCOTCH.
>
> It seems that the main SCOTCH copyright holders is Francois Pellegrini,
It is my understanding that he is the main author, but the copyright
holder is INRIA (along with ENSEIRB and CNRS).
Please see
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/s/scotch/copyright-5.1.12b.dfsg-2
However, I agree with you that François is really the person to be
persuaded.
Once he is convinced that SCOTCH should be re-licensed, I think he
will know who has to be contacted, in order to obtain the necessary
paperwork. Or, at least, I hope so.
> who is very active in the French Free Software community. One of the
> colleagues (same Inria research team) of Francois is Brice Goglin, who
> is a DD. So it might be useful to try to contact them.
This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these
bug reports.
If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or
indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner,
then I would be really really grateful.
As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies
to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely
to be listened to.
>
> Also, I don't think that the CeCILL license is very popular at Inria
> anymore, but I might be wrong.
I hope this is the case, since license proliferation is really bad
and has caused many headaches to many concerned people.
Thanks for any help you may provide in solving this long-standing
issue.
Bye.
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp3artfG0PlZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:27:47 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] > > It seems that the main SCOTCH copyright holders is Francois Pellegrini, > > It is my understanding that he is the main author, but the copyright > holder is INRIA (along with ENSEIRB and CNRS). > Please see > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/s/scotch/copyright-5.1.12b.dfsg-2 > > However, I agree with you that François is really the person to be > persuaded. > > Once he is convinced that SCOTCH should be re-licensed, I think he > will know who has to be contacted, in order to obtain the necessary > paperwork. Or, at least, I hope so. > > > who is very active in the French Free Software community. One of the > > colleagues (same Inria research team) of Francois is Brice Goglin, who > > is a DD. So it might be useful to try to contact them. > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > bug reports. > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > then I would be really really grateful. > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > to be listened to. [...] Hello again Lucas, is there any progress on this issue? Have you managed to get in touch with François Pellegrini? Have you succeeded in explaining the issue to him and in persuading him that SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? I really hope this long-standing issue may be solved for the best very soon... Please let me know. Thanks for your time and helpfulness! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgps3RUfreOzp.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:47:57 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 17/09/16 at 10:13 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:27:47 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] > > > > who is very active in the French Free Software community. One of the > > > > colleagues (same Inria research team) of Francois is Brice Goglin, who > > > > is a DD. So it might be useful to try to contact them. > > > > > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > > > bug reports. > > > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > > > then I would be really really grateful. > > > > > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > > > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > > > to be listened to. > > [...] > > > > Hello again Lucas, > > is there any progress on this issue? > > Not that I'm aware of, sorry. I apologize, but your reply is not too clear to me. Could you please elaborate a bit? Have you tried to get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or indirectly? Have you tried to explain the issue to him and to persuade him that SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpxRlEfTXQcw.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#740894: gmsh: please make tetgen an optional feature for gmsh
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:44:24 +0100 Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: [...] > Since I think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is non-free, I would like to kindly > ask you to make tetgen support in gmsh an optional feature, so that > libtet1.5 may be downgraded from the Depends to the Recommends control > field. > > In other words, I hope that there will again be the possibility to install > and use the gmsh Debian package *without* installing the tetgen or libtet1.5 > Debian package and *without* unpacking AfferoGPL-licensed files onto the > system. That is to say, no strong dependencies on libtet1.5 or inclusion > of tetgen files into the gmsh package, please! > > I really hope this can be done. > Thanks for your time and patience. Hello, is there any progress on this issue? Is what I ask feasible? Has my feature request been forwarded upstream? Please let me know, thanks for your time! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpXKHbbZueeE.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: License incompatibility below RC threshold
Dear Release Team, I am concerned that a license incompatibility (bug #741196 and the other similar bug reports against other packages) might slip through into the jessie release without being noticed or addressed adequately. Please read #741196 bug log, or, at least: https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5 https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53 https://bugs.debian.org/741196#96 What do you think should be done? I am very disappointed by the lack of replies from the FTP Masters and by the status of this bug: it seems that nobody is addressing it in any way and the severity is being kept below the RC threshold (during the wait for an official statement that seems to never arrive). Looking forward to hear back from you. Thanks for your time. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpkMLygCWHWW.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: License incompatibility below RC threshold
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:49:55 +0100 Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi FTP masters, > > We have been prodded about the severity of #741196 [ the prod is https://bugs.debian.org/741196#101 ] > However, being a license interpretation issue, we would like to > defer the judgement to you on this one (suggested in comment #39). > You may find the mail from Russ Allbery at [1] relevant for narrowing > down the possible issue (which is AFAICT a "choice of venue" clause). > > If you believe this is (or might be) a grave issue, please upgrade the > severity at your earliest convenience and notify us. > > Thank you, > ~Niels > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2015/01/msg00264.html Dear Release Team, dear FTP masters, just as I feared, jessie was released with this license incompatibility unaddressed. I believe I presented all the relevant facts to explain why there indeed is an incompatibility between the CeCILL-C and the GNU GPL licenses. Russ Allbery agreed that this may actually be a problem. Yet, the package maintainers do not believe that there is an issue and they keep the bug severity below the RC threshold, while waiting for some official pronouncement from the FTP masters. This official statement from the FTP masters has been requested multiple times, but seems to never arrive. Could you please take the time to address this issue during the stretch development cycle? Looking forward to hearing back from you. Thanks for your time. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpX3EdJqHz0e.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#726805: closed by Anton Gladky (Fixed)
Control: found -1 freecad/0.14.3702+dfsg-3 On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:39:39 +0200 Anton Gladky wrote: > fixed 726805 0.14.3702+dfsg-3 > thanks Hello, thanks for spending some time on this bug. However, I don't think that the issue is completely solved. As I said in https://bugs.debian.org/726805#15 , the debian/copyright file still describes some files as GPL-licensed, while in the actual package there no longer are any. I see at least the following outdated parts of the debian/copyright file: • src/Doc/Start_Page.html licensing is described three times with inconsistent information: please clarify and merge • src/Mod/Draft/* licensing is described as GPL-2+, while, for instance, src/Mod/Draft/DraftTools.py seems to be LGPL-2+ Please fix these outdated parts and check the remainder of the debian/copyright file against the _current_ licensing status of the package. Thanks for your time. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpBdsOkkYyjP.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#784505: Qt4 WebKit removal: raising severity to serious
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 23:07:32 +0300 Dmitry Shachnev wrote: [...] > As recently announced [1], we are going to remove not only Qt 4 WebKit, but > Qt 4 as a whole in Buster. As removing Qt 4 WebKit is the first step, I am > raising the severity of this bug to serious. > > Please port your package to Qt 5 if you do not want to get it removed from > Debian. [...] Hello Debian Science Team, I see that paraview is risking auto-removal from Debian testing, due to its dependence on Qt 4. Do I understand correctly that packaging the latest upstream version (5.4.1) would solve the issue? Is the new upstream version already being packaged? Please let me know. Thanks for your time and for maintaining this great package! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgptRD1XX9pcK.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#873362: coinor-libcoinutils3v5: unannounced ABI change without SONAME change?
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 20:39:29 +0100 James Cowgill wrote: > Hi, > > On 28/08/17 19:57, Anton Gladky wrote: > > Thanks all for discussion, explanations and investigations! > > > > @Rene, I propose to close this bug or to wait till upload of libreoffice. > > > > Next time, when the new coinutils version comes, I will let you know > > and coinmp should be tested against the new coinutils. Then it should > > probably be uploaded into the sid restricting in BD the minimal coinutils > > to guarantee the ABI compatibility like it done for all other dependent > > packages [1]. What do you think? > > > > [1] > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/coinor-cbc.git/tree/debian/control#n8 > > If there is an ABI break, you must rename the package. Trying to > restrict the build-dependencies will have no effect on the dependencies > at runtime which is where the ABI actually matters. > Hello, I am a user who pinned this package to version 2.9.15-4, because of this bug. I took a look at the bug log, but I am afraid I did not understand the conclusion: is there an actual ABI break or is it just some weak symbols appearing/disappearing depending on different inlining decisions taken by different compiler versions? Will libreoffice/1:5.4.1-1 (currently in unstable and testing) break, if I upgrade coinor-libcoinutils3v5 from version 2.9.15-4 to version 2.10.14+repack1-1 ? Should this bug report be closed or kept open? Could you please clarify? Thanks for your time and patience! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpVrEqqKUff2.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#873362: coinor-libcoinutils3v5: unannounced ABI change without SONAME change?
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 23:17:49 +0200 Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 07:37:03PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Will libreoffice/1:5.4.1-1 (currently in unstable and testing) break, > > if I upgrade coinor-libcoinutils3v5 from version 2.9.15-4 to version > > 2.10.14+repack1-1 ? > > The fix for LO is: rebuild coinmp. It works without rebuilding LO. > > That said, you probably didn't even check libreoffice/1:5.4.1-1s dependencies > sincce to go very very sure for partial upgrades it depends on the new, > rebuilt coinmp (and because coinutils didn't bump soname or so) on the > matching > coinutils. > > So LO will work. OK, thanks for the clarification! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpmXwRd6LwpK.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#740894: gmsh: please make tetgen an optional feature for gmsh
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 18:17:29 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:23:38 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:44:24 +0100 Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > > > > [...] > > > Since I think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is non-free, I would like to kindly > > > ask you to make tetgen support in gmsh an optional feature, so that > > > libtet1.5 may be downgraded from the Depends to the Recommends control > > > field. > > > > [...] > > > I really hope this can be done. > > > Thanks for your time and patience. > > > > Hello, > > is there any progress on this issue? > > > > Is what I ask feasible? > > Has my feature request been forwarded upstream? > > > > Please let me know, thanks for your time! > > Ping? Second ping? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpvwWdW9BRZ6.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#698527: Already fixed in oldstable
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:54:28 +0300 Adrian Bunk wrote: > I am closing this bug since it is already fixed in oldstable. ElmerGUI is included in the experimental package (elmerfem/7.0.svn.6034 +dfsg-2): it's not clear to me how the OpenSSL linking issue was solved. I cannot find any explanation in the changelog: could someone please clarify? Please let me know. Thanks for your time! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpAjJonfj5NZ.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#698527: Already fixed in oldstable
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:59:06 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:54:28 +0300 Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I am closing this bug since it is already fixed in oldstable. > > ElmerGUI is included in the experimental package (elmerfem/7.0.svn.6034 > +dfsg-2): it's not clear to me how the OpenSSL linking issue was solved. > I cannot find any explanation in the changelog: could someone please > clarify? > > Please let me know. > Thanks for your time! Ping? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpmd3PXGu2la.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 19:41:08 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:47:57 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 17/09/16 at 10:13 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > [...] > > > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > > > > bug reports. > > > > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > > > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > > > > then I would be really really grateful. > > > > > > > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > > > > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > > > > to be listened to. > > > [...] > > > > > > Hello again Lucas, > > > is there any progress on this issue? > > > > Not that I'm aware of, sorry. > > I apologize, but your reply is not too clear to me. > Could you please elaborate a bit? > > Have you tried to get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > indirectly? > Have you tried to explain the issue to him and to persuade him that > SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under > GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? Ping? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpWQDgr7gSNp.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#740894: gmsh: please make tetgen an optional feature for gmsh
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:23:38 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:44:24 +0100 Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > > [...] > > Since I think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is non-free, I would like to kindly > > ask you to make tetgen support in gmsh an optional feature, so that > > libtet1.5 may be downgraded from the Depends to the Recommends control > > field. > > [...] > > I really hope this can be done. > > Thanks for your time and patience. > > Hello, > is there any progress on this issue? > > Is what I ask feasible? > Has my feature request been forwarded upstream? > > Please let me know, thanks for your time! Ping? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp76DmA7LhVW.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#698527: Already fixed in oldstable
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:07:39 +0200 Adrian Bunk wrote: [...] > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 06:13:21PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:59:06 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > > ElmerGUI is included in the experimental package (elmerfem/7.0.svn.6034 > > > +dfsg-2): it's not clear to me how the OpenSSL linking issue was solved. > > > I cannot find any explanation in the changelog: could someone please > > > clarify? > > > > > > Please let me know. > > > Thanks for your time! > > > > Ping? > > Thanks a lot for noticing, and apologies for the late reply. You're welcome. And no problems for the delay... > > I completely missed that the more recent version in experimental > is not fixed, reopening. OK, thank you! Please address the remaining issue (that is to say: the link with OpenSSL). I hope this may be done soon. Bye and thanks for your time! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpVDkam2qGpv.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Re: Bug#741112 closed by Debian FTP Masters (Bug#845053: Removed package(s) from unstable)
Control: clone -1 -2 Control: reassign -2 libopenfoam 4.0+dfsg1-5 Control: reopen -2 On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:18:09 + Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Dear submitter, > > as the package freefoam has just been removed from the Debian archive > unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports. We are sorry > that we couldn't deal with your issue properly. [...] Package freefoam has been removed, but an identical issue is present in package openfoam. I am therefore cloning, reassigning, and reopening this bug report... Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgptHTxWFYDtR.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#845267: Bug#741112 closed by Debian FTP Masters (Bug#845053: Removed package(s) from unstable)
Control: retitle -1 libopenfoam: libscotchDecomp.so.0.1.0 is GPL-licensed but links with GPL-incompatible library On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:12:14 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: > Control: clone -1 -2 > Control: reassign -2 libopenfoam 4.0+dfsg1-5 > Control: reopen -2 [...] I forgot to retitle the bug report... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpak529niKtd.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 18:15:19 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 19:41:08 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:47:57 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > On 17/09/16 at 10:13 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:23:48 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > This is the kind of help I have been asking for since I filed these > > > > > bug reports. > > > > > If you can get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > > > > indirectly, and explain the issue to him in a convincing manner, > > > > > then I would be really really grateful. > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I tried multiple times, but François no longer replies > > > > > to my e-mail messages. That's why I need help from people more likely > > > > > to be listened to. > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Hello again Lucas, > > > > is there any progress on this issue? > > > > > > Not that I'm aware of, sorry. > > > > I apologize, but your reply is not too clear to me. > > Could you please elaborate a bit? > > > > Have you tried to get in touch with François Pellegrini, directly or > > indirectly? > > Have you tried to explain the issue to him and to persuade him that > > SCOTCH should be re-licensed (or dual-licensed) under > > GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms? > > Ping? Second ping? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpJOaMV58Zxu.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#698527: Elmer: few good news related to licensing.
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:14:45 +0400 Boris Pek wrote: > Hi folks, > > There are few very good news related to licensing of libraries used by Elmer: [...] > 3) tetgen library was relicensed under AGPLv3 since version 1.5.0 [...] and > now >is compatible with software under GPL-3+. If I understand correctly, you > may >just update tetgen-related files in your repo and use them without license >issues. After that tetgen-plugin will be able to be enabled in Debian and >Ubuntu packages. Hello Boris, I am happy to see that you are following the licensing developments closely. I would like to point out that the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is a controversial license: although it is considered acceptable [1] for Debian main by Debian ftp-masters, it is considered non-free by a number of people (including me [2]...). [1] https://bugs.debian.org/495721#17 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/495721#28 Just to be crystal clear: I am *not* a member of the Debian Project, I am just an external contributor who's very interested (among other things) in licensing issues. Since I think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is non-free, I would like to kindly ask you to only enable tetgen in elmer as an optional feature. I mean: I would be extremely pleased, if the elmer Debian package did not contain parts under the GNU AfferoGPL v3 and had no strong dependency on tetgen. In other words, I hope that there will be the possibility to install and use the elmer Debian package *without* installing the tetgen Debian package and *without* unpacking AfferoGPL-licensed files onto the system. I hope this is feasible. Thanks for considering. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpNGo_KYYdqQ.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#736916: [tetgen] please upgrade to 1.5.0
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:31:49 +0100 Christophe Trophime wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:18, Anton Gladky wrote: > > > Hi Christophe! > > > > Good to know, that tetgen has been relicensed! > > I will try to upload it in the evening. > > > > Could, you, please, then have a look at gmsh to enable this feature there? > > Yes of course > I also plan to merge gmsh-tetgen with gmsh as there is no more issue with > non-free software. > I manage to build gmsh-tetgen with tetgen, netgen 5.1… but I need to patch > gush for metis. > Then we can complete the merge. Hello Christophe and Anton, I would like to thank you for working on the gmsh Debian package. However, I would like to point out that the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is a controversial license: despite being considered acceptable [1] for Debian main by Debian ftp-masters, it is considered non-free by a number of people (including me [2]...). [1] https://bugs.debian.org/495721#17 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/495721#28 Please note that I am *not* a member of the Debian Project, I am just an external contributor who's very interested (among other things) in licensing issues. Since I think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is non-free, I would like to kindly ask you to only enable tetgen in gmsh as an optional feature. In other words, I hope there will still be the possibility to install and use the gmsh Debian package *without* installing the tetgen Debian package and *without* unpacking AfferoGPL-licensed files onto the system. That is to say, no strong dependencies on tetgen or inclusion of tetgen files into the gmsh package, please! I really hope this can be done. Thanks for your time and patience. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpw63NVS7ND1.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#618968: Bug#680738: salome-gui: links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:06:48 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Next steps are: > > 1) a new version of OCE (Opencascade Community Edition) based on OCCT > 6.7.0 will be released with all the changes (with respect to OCCT) > re-licensed under LGPL-2.1 This has recently happened! :-) > > 2) this new version of OCE will be packaged for Debian This has also happened! :-) OCE version 0.15 is already in unstable: http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/oce/news/20140219T093540Z.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/oce/news/20140221T071942Z.html Now, the remaining steps are: > > 3a) a new version of package salome-gui depending on this new version > of package oce will close bug #680738 > > 3b) a new version of package elmer depending on this new version of > package oce will close bug #698527, re-enabling the building of > ElmerGUI, *as long as* the OpenSSL linking issue has been solved in the > meanwhile > > 3c) a new version of package netgen depending on this new version of > package oce will re-enable the linking with libav libraries > > 4) everyone will celebrate! \o/ Bye! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpxDk5qwBG6c.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#740463: libelmersolver-6.1.so links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 23:50:15 +0100 Anton Gladky wrote: > (D) link elmer against libmetis and libmumps to escape linkage > against SCOTCH. If it is possible, of course. Hi Anton, yes, METIS (the serial version) seems to be under the Apache License v2.0 which is compatible with the GNU GPL v3 (but not with the GNU GPL v2). Hence, as long as libelmersolver-6.1 is not linked with other Apache-v2-incompatible libraries, this fourth strategy could also solve the licensing issue. Of course, assuming it is technically feasible, as you said. Please note that, although METIS is Free Software under the Apache License v2.0, its parallel version ParMETIS seems [1] to be restricted to educational/research purposes, thus being non-free software. [1] http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/metis/parmetis/download It would be great if someone managed to get in touch with ParMETIS copyright holders and persuaded them to re-license it under DFSG-free and GPL-compatible terms. The Apache License v2.0 would be very good, but it would be even greater, if the chosen license were GPL-v2-and-v3-compatible (such as the GNU GPL v2 or later, the GNU LGPL v2.1, or even the Expat license or the 3-clause BSD license...). Anton, do you have any contact with ParMETIS copyright holders? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgphTYfMkVOWR.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#740463: libelmersolver-6.1.so links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:13:00 +0100 Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: [...] > Since SCOTCH used to be LGPL-licensed (before switching to CeCILL-C! > oh nooo!), I got in touch with the main author of SCOTCH > (François Pellegrini) and tried to persuade him that SCOTCH should > be re-licensed [...] Just to be clear: what I attempted to persuade François to do is to (get the necessary paperwork to) re-license SCOTCH back under the GNU LGPL v2.1 or, at least, to dual-license it under the GNU LGPL v2.1 or the CeCILL-C v1.0 (at the recipient's choice). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpCGQgWT6KLU.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741303: libfeel++1: libfeelpp.so.1.0.0 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:52:34 +0100 Christophe Prud'homme wrote: > Dear Francesco Poli Hello Christophe, thanks for commenting my bug report. > > What is the state of this bug ? any progress with respect to scotch > licensing ? I am not aware of any progress: I am the bug report submitter and, as I said in the original bug report, I need help from other people who volunteer to get in touch with the upstream developer of SCOTCH and persuade him to re-license SCOTCH under the LGPL. I have already tried to do so in the past, but I failed to convince him that there is an issue. Please (re-)read https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the full story. Are you willing to help? If so, please contact the main author of SCOTCH and explain the licensing headaches he is causing to several other projects. If you manage to persuade him (to get the necessary paperwork) to re-license SCOTCH under the LGPL v2.1 or, at least, to dual-license it under the GNU LGPL v2.1 or the CeCILL-C v1.0 (at the recipient's choice), all the GPL-incompatibility issues will instantly vanish! > > this is a really painful situation ! Indeed. > > are petsc and all libraries (based on umfpack) related to this bug issues > marked for removal from testing ? By looking at http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi it seems to me that feel++ and getdp are marked for auto-removal from Debian testing, while other packages affected by SCOTCH licensing issues are not (yet?) on the list. I am not sure why (maybe because they are not leaf packages?). The complete list of SCOTCH licensing bug reports is https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;tag=scotch-license-issues;users=debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org > > have you marked also octave with an RC bug ? it uses suitesparse/umfpack > and scotch [1] Could you please elaborate? I cannot spot the dependency of octave on scotch... > Basically all libraries/programs using suitesparse/umfpack should have this > bug, no ? Only when they contain a file which (directly or indirectly) links with both SCOTCH and some GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK)... > I think Libreoffice/Openoffice are using suitesparse(and scotch) and glpk > so it should also have the RC bug. libreoffice? glpk? Could you please help me to find the dependency on scotch? I fail to see it... > > I guess that the technical solution would be to get rid of umfpack but then > that would disrupt a lot of software ! I think I clearly illustrated the solutions that I consider as acceptable: see my original bug report(s). Solution (A) is the most desirable, that's why I called for help to push in that direction... I hope this clarifies. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpwO9vjHrans.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#837796: paraview: segfaults when performing query-based selections
Control: found -1 paraview/5.4.1+dfsg3-1 On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:54:28 +0200 Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > Package: paraview > Version: 5.1.2+dfsg1-1 > Severity: important [...] > > I noticed a segfault that can be obtained reproducibly. [...] > Please investigate and fix this bug and/or forward my bug report > upstream. Hello again, I've just checked and the bug is still reproducible on current Debian testing (paraview/5.4.1+dfsg3-1+b2). Is there any progress? Have you investigated? Have you forwarded my bug report upstream? Please let me know, thanks for your time. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp16T0c5eOg4.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#837796: paraview: segfaults when performing query-based selections
Control: found -1 paraview/5.4.1+dfsg4-2 On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 18:57:58 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Hello again, > I've just checked and the bug is still reproducible on current Debian > testing (paraview/5.4.1+dfsg3-1+b2). > > Is there any progress? > Have you investigated? > Have you forwarded my bug report upstream? > > Please let me know, thanks for your time. Hello again, I've just re-checked with paraview/5.4.1+dfsg4-2 and the segfault (bug #837796) is still reproducible. I am adding this info to the version tracking data of the Debian BTS... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpd1d9q7Q2R5.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#892293: paraview: errors when saving animations as AVI files [regression]
Control: found -1 paraview/5.4.1+dfsg4-2 On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:43:06 +0100 Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: [...] > In a nutshell, version 5.4.1 fails to save animations as AVI files > (while version 5.1.2 was perfectly capable of doing so). [...] Hi once again! I've just re-checked with paraview/5.4.1+dfsg4-2 and I am still unable to save animations as AVI files: the steps described in the original bug report (#892293) produce the same errors. I am adding this info to the version tracking data of the Debian BTS... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpQktfCrCStx.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#894462: paraview: edges are blotted [regression]
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 19:51:36 +0200 Anton Gladky wrote: > Hi Francesco, Hello Anton! :-) > > thanks for bugreport. You are welcome. Thanks for your prompt reply! > The problem with paraview now is that it does > not actually have any active maintainer [...] I noticed that you removed yourself from the uploader list, but I was hoping someone else from the Debian Science Team was going to step in soon... Is this not the case? :-( > I am not using it any more Because you no longer have the need to perform data visualizations? Or because you now use some other similar package? I am not aware of any other comparable package in Debian, but maybe you are: that's why I am asking... > and the Gert (thanks to him!) is doing some technical uploads. Yeah, that is much appreciated: thanks Gert! > > If you really want it to be fixed (as well as export to AVI), feel free > to join our team and provide some patches. This is difficult, I lack the time and I don't know how long will it take to get the expertise required to maintain such a package... > Or at least the communication > with upstream would be very helpful. Could someone from the Debian Science Team at least forward this bug report upstream (along with the other ones I filed)? > Otherwise paraview is the good > candidate to be dropped from the next release. Assuming this is not an April Fool's Day prank, I am very worried by this danger. I really hope this won't happen! Thanks for your time and helpfulness. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpQImYJ3FGFA.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#894462: paraview: edges are blotted [regression]
Control: severity -1 important On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 20:39:56 +0200 Gert Wollny wrote: [...] > These two upstream bugs might also be related: > > https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview/issues/17202 > https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview/issues/16882 I think the latter (issue 16882) is especially related: it really seems to be the issue where the new anti-aliasing feature has been discussed and implemented. As I said, this new feature is really appreciated, but it has the flaw of making edges (on surfaces and in wireframe representations) look weird with "blotted" intersections. Once this flaw is fixed, this new anti-aliasing feature will be great! Luckily, while reading the above-cited upstream issue, I found out that this new anti-aliasing feature is enabled by default, but it may be disabled. For those following this bug log, the procedure to disable the anti-aliasing is: • select Settings... from the Edit menu • in the "Render View" tab, uncheck "Use FXAA" Since this feature may be disabled by the user, whenever it is considered harmful, the paraview package no longer appears to be unusable. I am therefore lowering the severity of this bug report. Thanks for your help so far. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgprQDYHYtQS6.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: License incompatibility below RC threshold
On Sat, 2 May 2015 18:34:31 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:49:55 +0100 Niels Thykier wrote: > > > Hi FTP masters, > > > > We have been prodded about the severity of #741196 > [ the prod is https://bugs.debian.org/741196#101 ] > > However, being a license interpretation issue, we would like to > > defer the judgement to you on this one (suggested in comment #39). > > You may find the mail from Russ Allbery at [1] relevant for narrowing > > down the possible issue (which is AFAICT a "choice of venue" clause). > > > > If you believe this is (or might be) a grave issue, please upgrade the > > severity at your earliest convenience and notify us. > > > > Thank you, > > ~Niels > > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2015/01/msg00264.html > > Dear Release Team, dear FTP masters, > just as I feared, jessie was released with this license incompatibility > unaddressed. > > > I believe I presented all the relevant facts to explain why there > indeed is an incompatibility between the CeCILL-C and the GNU GPL > licenses. > Russ Allbery agreed that this may actually be a problem. > > Yet, the package maintainers do not believe that there is an issue and > they keep the bug severity below the RC threshold, while waiting for > some official pronouncement from the FTP masters. > This official statement from the FTP masters has been requested > multiple times, but seems to never arrive. > > Could you please take the time to address this issue during the stretch > development cycle? > > Looking forward to hearing back from you. > Thanks for your time. Dear Release Team, dear FTP masters, once again this issue has been left unaddressed for quite some time, unfortunately. I think it should be taken care of as soon as possible, lest it slip through another stable release. Please re-read (at least): https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5 https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53 https://bugs.debian.org/741196#96 https://bugs.debian.org/741196#111 What do you think should be done? Once again, looking forward to hearing back from you. Thanks for any help you may provide in solving this issue once and for all. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp6zCC_Y_jyP.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: License incompatibility below RC threshold
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:34:44 + Niels Thykier wrote: > Francesco Poli: > > On Sat, 2 May 2015 18:34:31 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > >> [...] > > > > > > Dear Release Team, dear FTP masters, > > once again this issue has been left unaddressed for quite some time, > > unfortunately. [...] > > Hi, Hello Niels, thanks for your prompt reply. > > AFAICT, the FTP masters are the authoritative source on dealing with > license issues and they have not yet made a ruling. Yes, and that's the problem: they seem to never answer, no matter who and when tries to ask for a reply. Am I writing to the right e-mail address? I originally wrote to (which is listed in <https://www.debian.org/intro/organization>), but I see that you wrote to . Which one should I use? > > * I see no reason for the Release Team to be involving at this point as >we cannot answer this inquiry. > > However, should the FTP masters rule it to be a license incompatibility, > please do not hesitate to bump the severity to RC. Could someone prod the FTP masters to analyze the issue and provide an authoritative statement? Thanks for your time. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgprT58VSCBv3.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#823816: freecad: New upstream version available
On Mon, 9 May 2016 18:49:25 +0200 Anton Gladky wrote: > tags 823816 +pending > thanks Hello Anton, I am very glad to see that you are packaging the new upstream version of FreeCAD! Thanks a lot for your dedication. While you are at packaging the new version, could you please also address #745237 [1] and #726805 [2] ? [1] https://bugs.debian.org/745237#15 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/726805#34 Thanks for your time! Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpSpqglvdmJL.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#745237: closed by Anton Gladky (Bug#745237: fixed in freecad 0.14.3702+dfsg-2)
Control: found -1 freecad/0.16+dfsg1-1 On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:19:00 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Only data/examples/Schenkel.stp seems to survive in the source package [...] > this file is now shipped in > /usr/lib/freecad/data/examples/Schenkel.stp > by binary package freecad. [...] > Please drop the data/examples/ directory from the source package > and from the binary package (freecad)! [...] This is still unfixed in version 0.16+dfsg1-1: once again, please drop the data/examples/ directory from the source package and from the binary package (freecad). Thanks for your time. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpZjZx58ZFJT.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#745237: closed by Anton Gladky (Bug#745237: fixed in freecad 0.16+dfsg2-1)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 10:51:04 + Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: [...] >* [4f08de5] Remove data/examples. (Closes: #745237) [...] Thanks! :-) Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpwBtPrGaeLl.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#824711: closed by Anton Gladky (Bug#824711: fixed in coin3 3.1.4~abc9f50+dfsg1-2)
On Fri, 20 May 2016 19:00:07 + Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: [...] > [ Francesco Poli ] >* [832d33b] Fix d/copyright. (Closes: #824711) [...] Thanks for applying my patch! :-) Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpmvPZlUF4R5.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On Tue, 13 May 2014 11:37:17 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: [...] > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 22:26:06 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > > > => libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released > > under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license > > > Do you have a reference for this claimed incompatibility? As already said in the original bug report, please see the almost identical bug #740463 for some further details about the SCOTCH licensing issues. I hope this clarifies. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpz8NjGwx70B.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:48:34 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 18:34:35 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > As already said in the original bug report, please see the almost > > identical bug #740463 for some further details about the SCOTCH > > licensing issues. > > > > I hope this clarifies. > > > From what I understand CeCILL-C is intended to be more permissive than > plain CeCILL, which itself is explicitly GPL-compatible. So not really. Regardless of what the license is *intended* to be, CeCILL-C in fact includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL and has no explicit conversion-to-GPL clause, unlike the CeCILL license. As a consequence, CeCILL-C really appears to be GPL-incompatible, unfortunately... Anyway, thanks for following up on this bug report of mine. And thanks for any help you may provide to fix the issue! Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpkPZTVlR9uT.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Wed, 14 May 2014 16:41:46 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: > Control: severity -1 important > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 00:41:10 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Regardless of what the license is *intended* to be, CeCILL-C in fact > > includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL and has no explicit > > conversion-to-GPL clause, unlike the CeCILL license. > > > > As a consequence, CeCILL-C really appears to be GPL-incompatible, > > unfortunately... > > > > > > Anyway, thanks for following up on this bug report of mine. > > And thanks for any help you may provide to fix the issue! > > > Since I disagree, I'd like you to get that confirmed in an authoritative > statement from ftpmaster. In the meantime, I'll downgrade this bug. I am not sure I understand what you are disagreeing about. What I say is: (A) the CeCILL-C license includes some restrictions (at the very least, a choice of venue clause) which are not present in the GNU GPL v2 (or later) (B) the CeCILL-C license does not include any explicit conversion-to-GPL (or to any other license) clause (C) a license which includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL is GPL-incompatible, unless it has an explicit conversion-to-GPL-compatible-license clause Which point are you disagreeing on? Please clarify. Thanks for your time. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpeyhJ7vyDDR.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Thu, 15 May 2014 00:46:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 2014 16:41:46 +0200 Julien Cristau wrote: > > > Control: severity -1 important > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 00:41:10 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > > > Regardless of what the license is *intended* to be, CeCILL-C in fact > > > includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL and has no explicit > > > conversion-to-GPL clause, unlike the CeCILL license. > > > > > > As a consequence, CeCILL-C really appears to be GPL-incompatible, > > > unfortunately... > > > [...] > > > > > Since I disagree, I'd like you to get that confirmed in an authoritative > > statement from ftpmaster. In the meantime, I'll downgrade this bug. > > I am not sure I understand what you are disagreeing about. > > What I say is: > > (A) the CeCILL-C license includes some restrictions (at the very > least, a choice of venue clause) which are not present in the GNU GPL > v2 (or later) > > (B) the CeCILL-C license does not include any explicit > conversion-to-GPL (or to any other license) clause > > (C) a license which includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL > is GPL-incompatible, unless it has an explicit > conversion-to-GPL-compatible-license clause > > Which point are you disagreeing on? > Please clarify. > > Thanks for your time. Dear FTP Masters, I've been asked by Julien Cristau (who reads this message in copy) to get a confirmation in an "authoritative statement from ftpmaster" that the CeCILL-C license is GPL-incompatible. As you can read above, I asked him to clarify what he is disagreeing about, but I haven't received any reply. Please read the full #741196 bug log, if you need more context. If you agree with me that CeCILL-C is GPL-incompatible, then I think that the severity of bug #741196 should be raised again to "serious" and its "moreinfo" tag should be removed. Could you please express your opinion? Thanks for your time! Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpi9PKyRM7Uo.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#680738: salome-gui: links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:49:21 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:06:48 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Now, the remaining steps are: > > > > > 3a) a new version of package salome-gui depending on this new version > > of package oce will close bug #680738 [...] Hello Debian Science Maintainers, is there any progress on bug #680738? As previously said, an updated salome-gui package depending on oce packages version 0.15-x (currently in unstable and testing) would suffice to close the bug report. Having salome-gui ready to be released in jessie would be great. Thanks for your time! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpJLkqnRk6XT.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#698527: Bug#680738: salome-gui: links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:49:21 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:06:48 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Now, the remaining steps are: [...] > > 3b) a new version of package elmer depending on this new version of > > package oce will close bug #698527, re-enabling the building of > > ElmerGUI, *as long as* the OpenSSL linking issue has been solved in the > > meanwhile [...] Hello Debian Science Maintainers, is there any progress on bug #698527? Has the OpenSSL linking issue been addressed? As previously said, once the OpenSSL issue is solved, an updated elmer package depending on oce packages version 0.15-x (currently in unstable and testing) may re-enable the building of ElmerGUI and close the bug report. Having elmer ready to be released in jessie would be great (please remember that there's also bug #740463 to be addressed...). Thanks for your time! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpbbyz1yfG_R.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Control: severity -1 serious Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On Wed, 21 May 2014 21:57:19 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Dear FTP Masters, > I've been asked by Julien Cristau (who reads this message in copy) to > get a confirmation in an "authoritative statement from ftpmaster" that > the CeCILL-C license is GPL-incompatible. > [...] > I asked him to clarify what he is disagreeing > about, but I haven't received any reply. > > Please read the full #741196 bug log, if you need more context. > > If you agree with me that CeCILL-C is GPL-incompatible, then I think > that the severity of bug #741196 should be raised again to "serious" > and its "moreinfo" tag should be removed. > > Could you please express your opinion? In the absence of any reply from either the FTP Masters or Julien, I am raising the severity of this bug report back to "serious" and removing the "moreinfo" tag. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpzTn58shMeS.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:08:47 +0200 Anton Gladky wrote: > severity 741196 important > tags 741196 +moreinfo > thanks > > 2014-06-21 16:34 GMT+02:00 Francesco Poli : > > In the absence of any reply from either the FTP Masters or Julien, I am > > raising the severity of this bug report back to "serious" and removing > > the "moreinfo" tag. > > I disagree with that. That is the prerogative of maintainer to > set the bug`s severity (package is team-maintained). > > Please have some patience and wait for an answer from > FTP-masters. So be it. But I believe I have already explained the situation, hence I hope it's clear that, in this case, the "moreinfo" tag does *not* mean that the bug report is waiting for further information from me. We are instead waiting for a reply from the FTP Masters and for a clarification from Julien... Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpRNrWPwtavr.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#745237: closed by Anton Gladky (Bug#745237: fixed in freecad 0.14.3702+dfsg-2)
Control: found -1 freecad/0.14.3702+dfsg-2 On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 09:09:18 + Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: [...] >* [1a4492e] Remove deprecated lines from d/copyright. (Closes: #745237) [...] Hello and thanks for addressing the reported issue. Unfortunately, the issue does not seem to be completely fixed. My original bug report said: [...] | Only data/examples/Schenkel.stp seems to survive in the source package | currently in unstable and testing. | However, I cannot find it in any of the binary packages built from | the source package... Am I wrong that the file in question is not | actually shipped in any binary package? I see that this file is now shipped in /usr/lib/freecad/data/examples/Schenkel.stp by binary package freecad. | | If this is really the case, then please drop the data/examples/ | directory from the source package (by repacking it) and | remove the above quoted lines from the debian/copyright file. It seems to me that you removed the lines from the debian/copyright file, but you didn't drop the data/examples/ directory from the source package and binary package. I am therefore reopening the bug report. Please drop the data/examples/ directory from the source package and from the binary package (freecad)! Thanks for your time. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpvHg2QdPIq2.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#754310: netgen: meshing a STEP file makes X crash
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:03:34 -0400 Caitlin Matos wrote: [...] > I cannot reproduce this error on my machine, with all the latest > versions of the dependencies from testing. Hello Caitlin! First of all, thanks for your response and sorry for my late reply. > Also, many of the x11-related > packages underwent a significant update since then (e.g., > xserver-xorg-core in testing went from 1.15.1-1 to 1.16.0-1). > > Can you try on your machine with the updated packages and see if the > problem still occurs? I tried again with the system up-to-date with respect to current Debian testing. Unfortunately I am still able to reproduce the bug exactly as originally reported. > > If so, perhaps you should include some specs about the machine itself > (RAM, GPU, etc), as maybe your hardware is too old? The memory capacity is 8 GiB, the graphics chipset is Intel G45/G43. Please see the attached output of glxinfo, dmesg, and the X log. > Also, what WM or DE are you using? I am using the Fluxbox window manager. > > Also, what kind of output do you get to STDOUT before it crashes? I > realise you can't copy + paste this, so I have attached my own output > for you to look at. How far along do you get before it freezes? It seems to freeze as soon as I maximize the window (after minimizing it) or as soon as I switch workspace and then come back, and possibly after other GUI actions. So it depends on when I perform those actions... I hope this helps to pinpoint the bug... Please let me know, in case you need further information, but please take into account that the machine where I experience the bug is a production box: hence, I cannot afford to power-cycle it too often... :-( Thanks for your time. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE dmesg.out.gz Description: application/gzip glxinfo.out.gz Description: application/gzip Xorg.0.log.gz Description: application/gzip pgpK4ORzoCMDw.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#754310: netgen: meshing a STEP file makes X crash
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:46:26 -0700 Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 21:51:33 +0200, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > > > Package: netgen > > Version: 4.9.13.dfsg-8+b1 > > Severity: grave > > Justification: renders package unusable > > > > Hello, > > I cannot generate a mesh on a geometry described in a STEP file without > > experiencing X crashes that force me to reboot the machine. > > > X crashes are X bugs, not client bugs. Hi Julien, thanks for commenting my bug report! :-) What you say definitely makes sense. Could you please help me reassigning this bug report to the correct package? Maybe xserver-xorg-video-intel/2:2.21.15-2+b2 (please see the reply I sent yesterday)? Could you (or someone else you may suggest) try and reproduce the bug on similar hardware? Thanks for your time! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpRUayVQAs7q.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:46:27 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:08:47 +0200 Anton Gladky wrote: [...] > > Please have some patience and wait for an answer from > > FTP-masters. > > So be it. > > But I believe I have already explained the situation, hence I hope > it's clear that, in this case, the "moreinfo" tag does *not* mean that > the bug report is waiting for further information from me. > We are instead waiting for a reply from the FTP Masters [...] I am more and more worried by the lack of answers from the FTP Masters. The jessie freeze is quickly approaching and I am concerned that this license incompatibility issue (bug #741196 and the other similar bug reports against other packages) may slip through the release unaddressed... Dear FTP Masters, please read #741196 bug log, or, at least https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5 https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53 and express your opinion. Thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing back from you. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpVeosK5tYoS.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 23:00:22 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > I am more and more worried by the lack of answers from the > FTP Masters. > > The jessie freeze is quickly approaching and I am concerned that this > license incompatibility issue (bug #741196 and the other similar bug > reports against other packages) may slip through the release > unaddressed... > > Dear FTP Masters, > please read #741196 bug log, or, at least > > https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5 > https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53 > > and express your opinion. > > Thanks for your time. > Looking forward to hearing back from you. > > Bye. Hello again FTP Masters, just a friendly ping about this troublesome issue. Please please please express your opinion! Thanks for your time. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpPN3Im_VkLQ.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:04:21 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > On 14/09/2014 16:11, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 23:00:22 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > [...] > >> I am more and more worried by the lack of answers from the > >> FTP Masters. > >> > >> > >> Bye. > > Hello again FTP Masters, > > just a friendly ping about this troublesome issue. > > > > Please please please express your opinion! > > > I am not part of the ftpmaster team but I think they have plenty of > works with the latest transitions for Jessie to worry > about license incompatibility. Your comment almost seems to suggest that license incompatibilities are to be considered as minor issues... You probably didn't mean it. I think that license incompatibilities are serious and urgent issues, since they may cause packages to be legally undistributable. I waited for some more time, in the hope to receive some reply, but nothing arrived, unfortunately. Dear Sylvestre, what do you suggest to do? Julien and Anton do not seem to believe that there actually is an issue, unless they see some official statement from the FTP Masters, but this statement seems to never arrive. In the meantime, the severity of the bug report has been downgraded below the RC threshold. I assume good faith on Julien's and Anton's side, but, nevertheless, this looks very similar to a clever tactic to obtain a "virtual" jessie-ignore tag without actually asking for it... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpXqWhZ1SuwS.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#764814: freecad downloads and executes code
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:43:30 -0300 Yorik van Havre wrote: > Hi, Hello Yorik, I noticed this bug report and I felt the need to comment. You probably remember me as the one who originally reported the OpenCASCADE licensing issues for the freecad Debian package. If anyone is interested in reading the whole "odyssey", please take a look at the (very long) bug log [1]. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/617613 > > This download happens the first time a user wants to use the DXF > import/export feature. Since the license of our DXF exporter is GPL, and > other components of FreeCAD prevent from linking to GPL code (namely > OpenCasCade and Coin3D) (the whole story is another Debian bug), As you may remember, Coin3D has been re-licensed under the terms of the 3-clause BSD license [2][3]. [2] https://bugs.debian.org/617613#153 [3] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/c/coin3/copyright-3.1.4~abc9f50-7 But, above all, the good news is that OpenCASCADE is no longer GPL-incompatible [4], hence there's no need to avoid GPL-licensed code in freecad now! [4] https://bugs.debian.org/680738#32 [5] https://bugs.debian.org/680738#37 > we found > this trick of moving the dxf exporter out of the FreeCAD sources, and > placing it online, so it can be downloaded by users the first time they > need it. [...] I am not convinced about the soundness of this "trick", but, as I said above, I think it's not needed anymore. I hope this helps. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp4dUIQhOD7g.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#764814: freecad downloads and executes code
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:38:02 -0300 Yorik van Havre wrote: > > But, above all, the good news is that OpenCASCADE is no longer > > GPL-incompatible [4], hence there's no need to avoid GPL-licensed code > > in freecad now! > > > > Francesco, that is true, but all the solving of the license problems has > been a big headache, I think we all prefer to stay on the safe side now... If introducing back GPL-licensed code into freecad worries you, then you should get in touch with the copyright holders for the needed code and persuade them to re-license it under more permissive terms (LGPL v2.1, for example). I think that downloading code and executing it should really be avoided. Besides the already mentioned security issues, it also makes freecad less usable on an isolated box... > > Anyway, thanks a lot to you guys for helping with a solution! > > This is the reference to this bug on the freecad bug tracker: > http://freecadweb.org/tracker/view.php?id=1785 > > I'll post back here as soon as we solve it. I am not convinced that this bug is being addressed in the right direction: please reconsider the possible strategies to _avoid_ downloading code, as discussed above... Thanks for your time. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpu6xdk7MQu1.pgp Description: PGP signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#826457: python-sympy: please implement a way to force a derivative to be partial or total
Package: python-sympy
Version: 1.0-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: upstream
Hello!
I would love to have a way to force Sympy to consider a derivative
as partial or total, depending on my wishes.
This applies to how the derivative is printed (especially with the
LaTeX printer).
Let me explain with an example:
$ isympy
IPython console for SymPy 1.0 (Python 2.7.11-64-bit) (ground types: gmpy)
These commands were executed:
>>> from __future__ import division
>>> from sympy import *
>>> x, y, z, t = symbols('x y z t')
>>> k, m, n = symbols('k m n', integer=True)
>>> f, g, h = symbols('f g h', cls=Function)
>>> init_printing()
Documentation can be found at http://docs.sympy.org/1.0/
In [1]: Derivative(z,x)
Out[1]:
d
──(z)
dx
In [2]: print(latex(Derivative(z,x)))
\frac{d}{d x} z
In [3]: Derivative(f(x),x)
Out[3]:
d
──(f(x))
dx
In [4]: print(latex(Derivative(f(x),x)))
\frac{d}{d x} f{\left (x \right )}
In [5]: Derivative(f(x,y),x)
Out[5]:
∂
──(f(x, y))
∂x
In [6]: print(latex(Derivative(f(x,y),x)))
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} f{\left (x,y \right )}
In [7]: exit
Exiting ...
As you can see, the derivatives of z and of f(x) are printed with
the total derivative notation (they are treated as derivatives of
single-variable functions); on the other hand, the derivative of
f(x,y) is printed with the partial derivative notation (derivative
of a multiple-variable function with respect to one of the variables).
This is perfectly correct.
Nonetheless, I would like to be able to force Sympy to print
the first two derivatives with the partial derivative notation
and/or the last one with the total derivative notation.
It would be great, if some optional argument could be passed to
the Derivative class constructor, in order to do so. Something like
Derivative(z,x,type='partial')
Derivative(f(x),x,type='auto') equivalent to Derivative(f(x),x)
Derivative(f(x,y),x,type='total')
where 'partial' would mean "print unconditionally as partial
derivative", 'total' would mean "print unconditionally as total
derivative", and 'auto' would get the default behavior (that is
to say, "figure it out automatically").
I hope this feature may be implemented easily.
Could you please forward my report upstream?
Thanks for your time.
Bye.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 4.5.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages python-sympy depends on:
ii isympy 1.0-1
ii python-mpmath 0.19-3
pn python:any
Versions of packages python-sympy recommends:
ii dvipng 1.14-2+b2
ii ipython 2.4.1-1
ii python [python-ctypes] 2.7.11-1
ii python-gmpy 1.17-1
ii python-imaging 3.2.0-2
ii python-numpy1:1.11.1~rc1-1
ii python-pyglet 1.1.4.dfsg-3
ii python-sympy-doc1.0-1
ii texlive-fonts-extra 2016.20160520-1
python-sympy suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#837796: paraview: segfaults when performing query-based selections
Package: paraview Version: 5.1.2+dfsg1-1 Severity: important Hello! First of all, thanks for maintaining ParaView in Debian. I noticed a segfault that can be obtained reproducibly. It happens with query-based selections. The steps to reproduce the segfaults are the ones detailed in _Exercise 2.27 Performing Query-Based Selections_ of The ParaView Tutorial version 5.1 [1] (see page 59 or pdfpage 67 [2]), which uses the can.ex2 example data file [3]. [1] http://www.paraview.org/Wiki/The_ParaView_Tutorial [2] http://www.paraview.org/Wiki/images/f/f7/ParaViewTutorial51.pdf [3] http://www.paraview.org/Wiki/images/5/5d/ParaViewTutorialData.tar.gz I get a segfault as soon as I execute step 6 (click the Run Selection Query button). Please investigate and fix this bug and/or forward my bug report upstream. Thanks for your time! Bye. -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init) Versions of packages paraview depends on: ii libavcodec57 7:3.1.3-1+b3 ii libavformat57 7:3.1.3-1+b3 ii libavutil55 7:3.1.3-1+b3 ii libc6 2.23-5 ii libexpat1 2.2.0-1 ii libfreetype6 2.6.3-3+b1 ii libgcc1 1:6.1.1-11 ii libgl1-mesa-glx [libgl1] 12.0.2-1 ii libgl2ps1 1.3.9-4 ii libhdf5-101.8.16+docs-8 ii libjpeg62-turbo 1:1.5.0-1 ii libjsoncpp1 1.7.4-3 ii libnetcdf-c++44.2-6 ii libnetcdf11 1:4.4.1-2 ii libogg0 1.3.2-1 ii libopenmpi1.101.10.3-3 ii libpng16-16 1.6.24-2 ii libpython2.7 2.7.12-3 ii libqt4-help 4:4.8.7+dfsg-8 ii libqt4-network4:4.8.7+dfsg-8 ii libqtcore44:4.8.7+dfsg-8 ii libqtgui4 4:4.8.7+dfsg-8 ii libstdc++66.1.1-11 ii libswscale4 7:3.1.3-1+b3 ii libtheora01.1.1+dfsg.1-14 ii libtiff5 4.0.6-2 ii libx11-6 2:1.6.3-1 ii libxml2 2.9.4+dfsg1-1+b1 ii libxt61:1.1.5-1 ii python-autobahn 0.10.3+dfsg1-7 ii python-matplotlib 1.5.2-1 ii python-mpi4py 1.3.1+hg20131106-2+b2 ii python-six1.10.0-3 ii python-twisted16.3.0-1 ii tcl [tclsh] 8.6.0+9 ii tcl8.58.5.19-2 ii zlib1g1:1.2.8.dfsg-2+b1 Versions of packages paraview recommends: ii mpi-default-bin 1.7 ii paraview-doc 5.1.2+dfsg1-1 ii paraview-python 5.1.2+dfsg1-1 Versions of packages paraview suggests: pn h5utils pn hdf5-tools -- no debconf information -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#784841: paraview-python: cannot be installed side by side with mayavi2
Package: paraview-python
Version: 4.1.0+dfsg+1-1
Severity: normal
Hello and thanks for maintaining ParaView in Debian!
It seems to me that it's not possible to install paraview-python
on boxes where mayavi2 is already present:
$ aptitude -s install paraview-python
The following NEW packages will be installed:
fonts-lyx{a} libarmadillo4{a} libarpack2{a} libdap11{a} libdapclient3{a}
libdapserver7{a} libepsilon1{a} libfreexl1{a} libgdal1h{a}
libgeos-3.4.2{a} libgeos-c1{a} libhdf4-0-alt{a} libjsoncpp0{a} libkml0{a}
libodbc1{a} libogdi3.2{a} libproj0{a} libqt5opengl5{a} libqt5webkit5{a}
libspatialite5{a} liburiparser1{a} libvtk6.1{a} libxdmf2{a}
libxerces-c3.1{a} mpi-default-bin{a} odbcinst{a} odbcinst1debian2{a}
openmpi-bin{a} openmpi-common{a} paraview{a} paraview-doc{a}
paraview-python proj-bin{a} proj-data{a} python-dateutil{a}
python-glade2{a} python-matplotlib{a} python-matplotlib-data{a}
python-mock{a} python-nose{a} python-pyparsing{a} python-tz{a}
python-vtk6{ab} tcl-vtk6{a}
0 packages upgraded, 44 newly installed, 0 to remove and 3 not upgraded.
Need to get 112 MB of archives. After unpacking 455 MB will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
python-vtk6 : Conflicts: python-vtk but 5.8.0-17.5 is installed.
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Remove the following packages:
1) mayavi2
2) python-vtk
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]
It would be nice if this conflict could solved for the best,
so that one could have mayavi2 and paraview-python on the same
box.
Thanks for considering.
Bye.
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#740463: libelmersolver-6.1.so links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Package: libelmersolver-6.1 Version: 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.3 User: debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: scotch-license-issues Hello, it was previously [1] noticed that Elmer links with SCOTCH, which is GPL-incompatible. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/618696#34 Unfortunately, it seems to me that the issue is deeper than it appeared to be. Let's start from the beginning. SCOTCH [2] is under the terms of the CeCILL-C license, which is GPL-incompatible, since it includes some restrictions not included in the GPL (at the very least, the choice of venue clause) and has no explicit conversion-to-GPL clause. An analysis of this license may be found on the debian-legal archives [3]. [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/scotch.html [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00171.html The library /usr/lib/libelmersolver-6.1.so links with: => libdmumps_scotch-4.10.0.so, which is public domain, but is linked with the GPL-incompatible libscotch-5.1.so => libumfpack.so.5.6.2, which [4] is under the GNU GPL v2 or later => libcholmod.so.2.1.2, which [4] has parts under the GNU GPL v2 or later [4] http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/s/suitesparse/unstable_copyright This seems to mean that package libelmersolver-6.1 includes a file which links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries. I think the possible solutions to this licensing issue are, in descending order of desirability: (A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms (B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible replacement, if any is available (C) GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK and CHOLMOD) copyright holders should be asked to relax the copyleft (for instance by switching the LGPL v2.1) or add license exceptions that give permission to link their works with code released under CeCILL-C v1.0 The best solution is (A): having SCOTCH re-licensed under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms would eliminate all the SCOTCH license incompatibility issues. Since SCOTCH used to be LGPL-licensed (before switching to CeCILL-C! oh nooo!), I got in touch with the main author of SCOTCH (François Pellegrini) and tried to persuade him that SCOTCH should be re-licensed, in the hope that he would discuss the issue with the actual copyright holders (INRIA) and obtain the necessary paperwork. I talked to him in 2011, explaining the issue, but I apparently failed to convince him that there indeed is an issue. I have recently tried again to get in touch with him, but I haven't succeeded. Now I really need your help: please try hard to pursue solution (A). Succeeding would solve the issue for elmerfem, but also really benefit several other packages which suffer from similar problems with SCOTCH. I still have to file bug reports against those other packages, but I'll do so sooner or later. I hope you are OK with the usertag I set for this bug report: I intend to use it for the other similar reports as well. Thanks for your time and let's hope this issue may be solved for the best real soon now! -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#740894: gmsh: please make tetgen an optional feature for gmsh
Package: gmsh Version: 2.8.4+dfsg-1 Severity: wishlist Hello, thanks a lot for maintaining gmsh in Debian. I see that tetgen support was enabled in gmsh/2.8.4+dfsg-1, thus creating the new dependency on libtet1.5 ... I would like to point out that the current license of tetgen is the GNU AfferoGPL v3, which is a highly controversial license: despite being considered acceptable [1] for Debian main by Debian ftp-masters, it is considered non-free by a number of people (including me [2]...). [1] https://bugs.debian.org/495721#17 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/495721#28 Please note that I am *not* a member of the Debian Project, I am just an external contributor who's very interested (among other things) in licensing issues. Since I think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is non-free, I would like to kindly ask you to make tetgen support in gmsh an optional feature, so that libtet1.5 may be downgraded from the Depends to the Recommends control field. In other words, I hope that there will again be the possibility to install and use the gmsh Debian package *without* installing the tetgen or libtet1.5 Debian package and *without* unpacking AfferoGPL-licensed files onto the system. That is to say, no strong dependencies on libtet1.5 or inclusion of tetgen files into the gmsh package, please! I really hope this can be done. Thanks for your time and patience. -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741112: libfreefoam1: libscotchDecomp.so.0.1.0 is GPL-licensed but links with GPL-incompatible library
Package: libfreefoam1
Version: 0.1.0+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
User: debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello,
the library /usr/lib/freefoam/libscotchDecomp.so.0.1.0 is apparently
licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL v3 or later (without any
special exception), but it links with
=> libscotch-5.1.so
=> libscotcherrexit-5.1.so
which are released under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C
v1.0 license.
Please refer to the related bug #740463 for some further details
about the SCOTCH licensing issues.
I think the possible solutions to the issue for freefoam are, in
descending order of desirability:
(A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
(B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible
replacement, if any is available (METIS seems to be at least
GPLv3-or-later-compatible, see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#15 )
(C) the copyright holders of libscotchDecomp.so.0.1.0, and of any
GPL-licensed library or program (libOpenFOAM.so.1,
libdecompositionMethods.so.1, and so forth) which is linked with
libscotchDecomp.so.0.1.0, should be asked to relax the copyleft
(for instance by switching the LGPL) or add license exceptions that
give permission to link their works with code released under
CeCILL-C v1.0
Since the best solution is (A), I renew my call for help to push
in the direction of {re|dual}-licensing SCOTCH under the GNU LGPL v2.1:
again, please see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the full story.
Thanks for your time!
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741204: getdp is GPL-licensed, but links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Package: getdp
Version: 2.4.2-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
User: debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello,
the program /usr/bin/getdp is under the GNU GPL v2 (only? or later?
the debian/copyright is not too clear on this aspect) and links with:
=> libumfpack.so.5.6.2, which is under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libcholmod.so.2.1.2, which has parts under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released
under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license
=> libpetsc.so.3.4.2 and libslepc.so.3.4.2, which, though not being
under strong copyleft or under copyleft at all, link, in their
turn, with the above three libraries...
This seems to mean that package getdp includes a file which is
GPL-licensed and links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible
libraries.
Please refer to the similar bug #740463 for some further details about
the SCOTCH licensing issues.
I think the possible solutions to the issue for getdp are, in
descending order of desirability:
(A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
(B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible
replacement, if any is available (METIS seems to be at least
GPLv3-or-later-compatible, see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#15 )
(C) GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK and CHOLMOD) copyright
holders, as well as GetDP copyright holders, should be asked to relax
the copyleft (for instance by switching to the LGPL v2.1) or add
license exceptions that give permission to link their works with
code released under CeCILL-C v1.0
As mentioned in previous bug reports, the best solution is (A):
I therefore renew my call for help to push in the direction of
{re|dual}-licensing SCOTCH under the GNU LGPL v2.1:
please see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the details.
Thanks for your time!
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741196: libpetsc3.4.2: libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Package: libpetsc3.4.2
Version: 3.4.2.dfsg1-6
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
User: debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello,
the library /usr/lib/libpetsc.so.3.4.2 links with:
=> libumfpack.so.5.6.2, which is under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libcholmod.so.2.1.2, which has parts under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released
under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license
This seems to mean that package libpetsc3.4.2 includes a file which
links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries.
Please refer to the almost identical bug #740463 for some further
details about the SCOTCH licensing issues.
I think the possible solutions to the issue for petsc are, in
descending order of desirability:
(A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
(B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible
replacement, if any is available (METIS seems to be at least
GPLv3-or-later-compatible, see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#15 )
(C) GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK and CHOLMOD) copyright
holders should be asked to relax the copyleft (for instance by switching
to the LGPL v2.1) or add license exceptions that give permission to link
their works with code released under CeCILL-C v1.0
As stated in other bug reports, the best solution is (A). Thus, I renew
my call for help to push in the direction of {re|dual}-licensing SCOTCH
under the GNU LGPL v2.1: please see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5
for the details.
Thanks for your time!
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741172: libslepc3.4.2: libslepc.so.3.4.2 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Package: libslepc3.4.2
Version: 3.4.2.dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
User: debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello,
the library /usr/lib/libslepc.so.3.4.2 links with:
=> libumfpack.so.5.6.2, which is under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libcholmod.so.2.1.2, which has parts under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released
under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license
=> libpetsc.so.3.4.2, which, though being permissively-licensed, seems
to link, in its turn, with the above three libraries...
This seems to mean that package libslepc3.4.2 includes a file which
links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries.
Please refer to the almost identical bug #740463 for some further
details about the SCOTCH licensing issues.
I think the possible solutions to issue for slepc are, in
descending order of desirability:
(A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
(B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible
replacement, if any is available (METIS seems to be at least
GPLv3-or-later-compatible, see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#15 )
(C) GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK and CHOLMOD) copyright
holders should be asked to relax the copyleft (for instance by switching
to the LGPL v2.1) or add license exceptions that give permission to link
their works with code released under CeCILL-C v1.0
Once again, the best solution is (A): I renew my call for help to push
in the direction of {re|dual}-licensing SCOTCH under the GNU LGPL v2.1:
please see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the full story.
Thanks for your time!
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741165: libdolfin1.3: libdolfin.so.1.3.0 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Package: libdolfin1.3
Version: 1.3.0+dfsg-2
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
User: debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello,
the library /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdolfin.so.1.3.0 links with:
=> libumfpack.so.5.6.2, which is under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libcholmod.so.2.1.2, which has parts under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released
under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license
This seems to mean that package libdolfin1.3 includes a file which
links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries.
Please refer to the almost identical bug #740463 for some further
details about the SCOTCH licensing issues.
I think the possible solutions to issue for dolfin are, in
descending order of desirability:
(A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
(B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible
replacement, if any is available (METIS seems to be at least
GPLv3-or-later-compatible, see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#15 )
(C) GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK and CHOLMOD) copyright
holders should be asked to relax the copyleft (for instance by switching
the LGPL v2.1) or add license exceptions that give permission to link
their works with code released under CeCILL-C v1.0
Since the best solution is (A), I renew my call for help to push
in the direction of {re|dual}-licensing SCOTCH under the GNU LGPL v2.1:
again, please see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the full story.
Thanks for your time!
P.S.: binary package python-dolfin could also be possibly affected
by this same issue...
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#741303: libfeel++1: libfeelpp.so.1.0.0 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries
Package: libfeel++1
Version: 1:0.95.0-final-2
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
User: debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello,
the library /usr/lib/libfeelpp.so.1.0.0 links with:
=> libumfpack.so.5.6.2, which is under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libcholmod.so.2.1.2, which has parts under the GNU GPL v2 or later
=> libptscotch-5.1.so and libptscotcherr-5.1.so, which are released
under the GPL-incompatible terms of the CeCILL-C v1.0 license
=> libpetsc.so.3.4.2 and libslepc.so.3.4.2, which, though not being
under strong copyleft or under copyleft at all, link, in their
turn, with the above three libraries...
=> libglpk.so.36, which is under the GNU GPL v3 or later
=> libgmsh.so.2, which is under the GNU GPL v2 or later (with some
exceptions, but not regarding SCOTCH or CeCILL-C)
This seems to mean that package libfeel++1 includes a file which
links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries.
Please refer to the similar bug #740463 for some further details about
the SCOTCH licensing issues.
I have also noticed that package feel++-apps includes several files
which link with the above mentioned combination of libraries.
I think the possible solutions to the issue for feel++ are, in
descending order of desirability:
(A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms
(B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible
replacement, if any is available (METIS seems to be at least
GPLv3-or-later-compatible, see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#15 )
(C) GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK and CHOLMOD, GLPK, Gmsh)
copyright holders should be asked to relax the copyleft (for instance
by switching to the LGPL v2.1) or add license exceptions that give
permission to link their works with code released under CeCILL-C v1.0
As said in other bug reports, the best solution is (A):
I am thus renewing my call for help to push in the direction of
{re|dual}-licensing SCOTCH under the GNU LGPL v2.1:
please see https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the full story.
Thanks for your time!
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#745237: freecad: unclear situation w.r.t. example files (source package vs. binary packages vs. debian/copyright)
Package: freecad Version: 0.13.2935-dfsg-1.1 Severity: important Hello, I see that bug #726805 is unfortunately still unfixed... While reviewing it, I noticed another part of the debian/copyright file which is unclear and seems to be outdated. I was going to add a comment to #726805 bug log, but, on a second thought, I reached the conclusion that there's something more unclear than a simple outdated debian/copyright file: I therefore decided that this issue deserves a separate bug report. The problem is that the debian/copyright file lists the following files: Files: data/examples/DrawingExample.FCStd data/examples/PartDesignExample.FCStd data/examples/RobotExample.FCStd data/examples/Schenkel.stp Copyright: 2011 Juergen Riegel License: CC-BY-SA Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. Files: data/examples/EngineBlock.FCStd Copyright: 2011 Werner Mayer License: CC-BY-SA Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. Well, it seems to me that almost all these files have disappeared from the source package: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/freecad.git;a=tree;f=data/examples;h=4517d74b346f2ac90676b1b1db9959f9c2d02984;hb=cd4127aae7de514e5347e890d007a383386d4aa1 Only data/examples/Schenkel.stp seems to survive in the source package currently in unstable and testing. However, I cannot find it in any of the binary packages built from the source package... Am I wrong that the file in question is not actually shipped in any binary package? If this is really the case, then please drop the data/examples/ directory from the source package (by repacking it) and remove the above quoted lines from the debian/copyright file. I hope this can be done soon. Thanks a lot for your time and effort to maintain this package! Bye. -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#888607: paraview: complaints about deprecated functions in VTK 7.0
Package: paraview Version: 5.4.1+dfsg3-1+b2 Severity: important Hello! Thanks for maintaining ParaView in Debian. For some time lately, I have been experienced an annoying issue: each time I load some data (it seems that this happens with different data file formats, if not with all of them), a dialog window appears telling me that + ! vtkVolumeTextMapper3D was deprecated for VTK 7.0 and will be removed in a future version + ! vtkOpenGLVolumeTextureMapper3D was deprecated for VTK 7.0 and will be removed in a future version If I click on "Show full messages", I read: Generic Warning: In /build/paraview-8H5PCo/paraview-5.4.1+dfsg3/VTK/Rendering/Volume/vtkVolumeTextureMapper3D.cxx, line 680 vtkVolumeTextureMapper3D::vtkVolumeTextureMapper3D was deprecated for VTK 7.0 and will be removed in a future version. Generic Warning: In /build/paraview-8H5PCo/paraview-5.4.1+dfsg3/VTK/Rendering/VolumeOpenGL/vtkOpenGLVolumeTextureMapper3D.cxx, line 57 vtkOpenGLVolumeTextureMapper3D::vtkOpenGLVolumeTextureMapper3D was deprecated for VTK 7.0 and will be removed in a future version. Since the warning messages appear to come from the VTK library copy included in the paraview package itself, I assume that this misbehavior began with one of the latest paraview package upgrades. And that it depends on some inconsistency between ParaView and its own VTK library copy. Having to take a look at the dialog (in order to check that it only contains the above quoted warnings and nothing worse) and to close it, *each* time I read new data, is quite annoying. Please fix this misbehavior and/or forward the bug report upstream. Thanks for your time. Bye! -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages paraview depends on: ii libavcodec57 7:3.4.1-1+b2 ii libavformat57 7:3.4.1-1+b2 ii libavutil557:3.4.1-1+b2 ii libc6 2.26-4 ii libcgns3.3 3.3.0-4+b1 ii libexpat1 2.2.5-3 ii libfreetype6 2.8.1-1 ii libgcc11:7.2.0-19 ii libgl1 1.0.0-1.1 ii libgl2ps1.41.4.0+dfsg1-1 ii libhdf5-1001.10.0-patch1+docs-4 ii libjpeg62-turbo1:1.5.2-2+b1 ii libjsoncpp11.7.4-3 ii libnetcdf131:4.5.0-2 ii libogg01.3.2-1+b1 ii libopenmpi22.1.1-7 ii libpng16-161.6.34-1 ii libprotobuf10 3.0.0-9.1 ii libpython2.7 2.7.14-4 ii libqt4-help4:4.8.7+dfsg-11 ii libqt4-network 4:4.8.7+dfsg-11 ii libqtcore4 4:4.8.7+dfsg-11 ii libqtgui4 4:4.8.7+dfsg-11 ii libstdc++6 7.2.0-19 ii libswscale47:3.4.1-1+b2 ii libtheora0 1.1.1+dfsg.1-14+b1 ii libtiff5 4.0.9-3 ii libx11-6 2:1.6.4-3 ii libxml22.9.4+dfsg1-6.1 ii libxt6 1:1.1.5-1 ii python-autobahn17.7.1+dfsg1-3 ii python-matplotlib 2.0.0+dfsg1-2+b1 ii python-mpi4py 2.0.0-3 ii python-six 1.11.0-1 ii python-twisted 17.9.0-1 ii tcl [tclsh]8.6.0+9 ii zlib1g 1:1.2.8.dfsg-5 Versions of packages paraview recommends: ii mpi-default-bin 1.9 ii paraview-doc 5.4.1+dfsg3-1 ii paraview-python 5.4.1+dfsg3-1+b2 Versions of packages paraview suggests: pn h5utils pn hdf5-tools -- no debconf information -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#892293: paraview: errors when saving animations as AVI files [regression]
Package: paraview Version: 5.4.1+dfsg3-1+b2 Severity: important Dear paraview Debian package maintainers, I've just found a regression. In a nutshell, version 5.4.1 fails to save animations as AVI files (while version 5.1.2 was perfectly capable of doing so). Other animation formats (OGV, PNG images, ...) seem to work as expected. In order to reproduce the bug, you may use the attached test case (but please note that any other temporal data set will do...). The compressed tar archive includes a small Fortran program that generates the sample data and a ParaView state file. Steps to reproduce the bug: 0) compile gen_waveplot3d.f (with gfortran or another Fortran compiler) 1) run the executable 2) start ParaView $ paraview --state=wave_anim.pvsm 3) select Save Animation ... from the File menu 4) set the parameters (the values seem to make no difference) 5) save to file "wave_anim_test.avi" (or any other file name with .avi extension) 6) the animation is not correctly saved as the requested AVI file and Paraview prints the following error messages (on the terminal): [avi @ 0x55fa91dfe560] Using AVStream.codec.time_base as a timebase hint to the muxer is deprecated. Set AVStream.time_base instead. [avi @ 0x55fa91dfe560] Using AVStream.codec to pass codec parameters to muxers is deprecated, use AVStream.codecpar instead. [rawvideo @ 0x55fa91feffe0] AVFrame.format is not set [rawvideo @ 0x55fa91feffe0] AVFrame.width or height is not set Generic Warning: In /build/paraview-8H5PCo/paraview-5.4.1+dfsg3/VTK/IO/FFMPEG/vtkFFMPEGWriter.cxx, line 449 Problem encoding frame. ERROR: In /build/paraview-8H5PCo/paraview-5.4.1+dfsg3/VTK/IO/FFMPEG/vtkFFMPEGWriter.cxx, line 620 vtkFFMPEGWriter (0x55fa93f5c9c0): Error storing image. I hope you can investigate and fix this bug soon, as losing this functionality is a very annoying limitation... Thanks for your time! Bye. -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages paraview depends on: ii libavcodec57 7:3.4.2-1+b1 ii libavformat57 7:3.4.2-1+b1 ii libavutil557:3.4.2-1+b1 ii libc6 2.26-6 ii libcgns3.3 3.3.0-5 ii libexpat1 2.2.5-3 ii libfreetype6 2.8.1-2 ii libgcc11:8-20180218-1 ii libgl1 1.0.0-2 ii libgl2ps1.41.4.0+dfsg1-1 ii libhdf5-1001.10.0-patch1+docs-4 ii libjpeg62-turbo1:1.5.2-2+b1 ii libjsoncpp11.7.4-3 ii libnetcdf131:4.6.0-2 ii libogg01.3.2-1+b1 ii libopenmpi22.1.1-8 ii libpng16-161.6.34-1 ii libprotobuf10 3.0.0-9.1 ii libpython2.7 2.7.14-6 ii libqt4-help4:4.8.7+dfsg-11 ii libqt4-network 4:4.8.7+dfsg-11 ii libqtcore4 4:4.8.7+dfsg-11 ii libqtgui4 4:4.8.7+dfsg-11 ii libstdc++6 8-20180218-1 ii libswscale47:3.4.2-1+b1 ii libtheora0 1.1.1+dfsg.1-14+b1 ii libtiff5 4.0.9-4 ii libx11-6 2:1.6.4-3 ii libxml22.9.4+dfsg1-6.1 ii libxt6 1:1.1.5-1 ii python-autobahn17.10.1+dfsg1-2 ii python-matplotlib 2.1.1-2 ii python-mpi4py 2.0.0-3 ii python-six 1.11.0-2 ii python-twisted 17.9.0-1 ii tcl [tclsh]8.6.0+9 ii zlib1g 1:1.2.8.dfsg-5 Versions of packages paraview recommends: ii mpi-default-bin 1.10 ii paraview-doc 5.4.1+dfsg3-1 ii paraview-python 5.4.1+dfsg3-1+b2 Versions of packages paraview suggests: pn h5utils pn hdf5-tools -- no debconf information waveplot3d.tar.xz Description: application/xz -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#894462: paraview: edges are blotted [regression]
Package: paraview Version: 5.4.1+dfsg4-2 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable Hello paraview Debian package maintainers, thanks for uploading a Debian revision that uses Qt5 rather than Qt4! I've just upgraded to it on my Debian testing box, but I found a bad regression that renders the package unusable to create beautiful and clear visualizations (this may be considered as basically the main purpose of paraview!). The attached test case is based on one of the data files generated by the little program included in the test case sent for bug #892293. The program source (written in Fortran) is included again for completeness' sake. Steps to reproduce the regression: 0) start paraview $ paraview 1) click on the "Open" button and open "wave0001.xyz" 2) specify "PLOT3D Files" in the "Open Data With..." dialog window 3) click on the "Apply" button 4) change the representation from "Outline" to "Surface With Edges" 5) from the File menu, select Save State... 6) save the state as "wave_PARAVIEW-VERSION.pvsm" 7) from the File menu, select Save Screenshot... 8) save the screenshot as "wave_PARAVIEW-VERSION.png" By performing these steps with paraview/5.4.1+dfsg3-2 and with paraview/5.4.1+dfsg4-2, I obtained the two attached screenshots. In paraview/5.4.1+dfsg4-2 there seems to be a commendable attempt to apply some antialiasing to all the lines (including the edges on surfaces, the wireframe edges, but also the lines of the orientation axes, and so forth...). Unfortunately this new feature creates unsightly images, whenever the edges are shown from a distance. Please take a look yourself at the wave_5.4.1+dfsg4-2.png screenshot: all the intersections between edges seem to be somehow "blotted" and unpleasant to look at. Please fix this regression, as it makes paraview unusable. Thanks for your time! Bye. -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages paraview depends on: ii libavcodec57 7:3.4.2-1+b1 ii libavformat57 7:3.4.2-1+b1 ii libavutil557:3.4.2-1+b1 ii libc6 2.27-2 ii libcgns3.3 3.3.0-6 ii libexpat1 2.2.5-3 ii libfreetype6 2.8.1-2 ii libgcc11:8-20180321-1 ii libgl1 1.0.0-2 ii libgl2ps1.41.4.0+dfsg1-2 ii libglew2.0 2.0.0-5 ii libhdf5-1001.10.0-patch1+docs-4 ii libjpeg62-turbo1:1.5.2-2+b1 ii libjsoncpp11.7.4-3 ii libnetcdf131:4.6.1-1 ii libogg01.3.2-1+b1 ii libopenmpi22.1.1-8 ii libpng16-161.6.34-1 ii libprotobuf10 3.0.0-9.1 ii libpython2.7 2.7.14-7 ii libqt5core5a 5.9.2+dfsg-12 ii libqt5gui5 5.9.2+dfsg-12 ii libqt5help55.9.2-6 ii libqt5network5 5.9.2+dfsg-12 ii libqt5widgets5 5.9.2+dfsg-12 ii libqt5x11extras5 5.9.2-1 ii libstdc++6 8-20180321-1 ii libswscale47:3.4.2-1+b1 ii libtheora0 1.1.1+dfsg.1-14+b1 ii libtiff5 4.0.9-4 ii libx11-6 2:1.6.5-1 ii libxml22.9.4+dfsg1-6.1 ii libxt6 1:1.1.5-1 ii python-autobahn17.10.1+dfsg1-2 ii python-matplotlib 2.1.1-2 ii python-mpi4py 2.0.0-3 ii python-six 1.11.0-2 ii python-twisted 17.9.0-1 ii tcl [tclsh]8.6.0+9 ii zlib1g 1:1.2.8.dfsg-5 Versions of packages paraview recommends: ii mpi-default-bin 1.10 ii paraview-doc 5.4.1+dfsg4-2 ii paraview-python 5.4.1+dfsg4-2 Versions of packages paraview suggests: pn h5utils pn hdf5-tools -- no debconf information waveplot3d_blotted-edges.tar.xz Description: application/xz -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#815600: isympy: lacks a dependency on python-sympy | python3-sympy
Package: isympy
Version: 0.7.6.1-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hello and thanks for maintaining the sympy Debian package!
I think binary isympy lacks a dependency on python-sympy | python3-sympy.
Without this dependency, installing it leaves the package in an unusable
state:
$ su -
Password:
# aptitude install isympy
The following NEW packages will be installed:
ipython{a} isympy python-decorator{a} python-pexpect{a}
python-ptyprocess{a} python-simplegeneric{a}
[...]
Setting up isympy (0.7.6.1-1) ...
# exit
$ isympy
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/isympy", line 357, in
main()
File "/usr/bin/isympy", line 353, in main
from sympy.interactive import init_session
ImportError: No module named sympy.interactive
$ su -
Password:
# aptitude install python-sympy
The following NEW packages will be installed:
dvipng{a} python-gmpy{a} python-mpmath{a} python-pyglet{a} python-sympy
python-sympy-doc{a}
[...]
Setting up python-sympy-doc (0.7.6.1-1) ...
Processing triggers for menu (2.1.47) ...
# exit
$ isympy
IPython console for SymPy 0.7.6.1 (Python 2.7.11-64-bit) (ground types: gmpy)
These commands were executed:
>>> from __future__ import division
>>> from sympy import *
>>> x, y, z, t = symbols('x y z t')
>>> k, m, n = symbols('k m n', integer=True)
>>> f, g, h = symbols('f g h', cls=Function)
>>> init_printing()
Documentation can be found at http://www.sympy.org
In [1]:
Hence, isympy should depend on python-sympy | python3-sympy.
Please add this dependency.
Thanks for your time!
Bye.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages isympy depends on:
pn python:any | python:any
Versions of packages isympy recommends:
ii ipython 2.4.1-1
isympy suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#819515: python-sympy: please package new upstream version
Package: python-sympy Version: 0.7.6.1-2 Severity: wishlist Hello and thanks (again) for maintaining the sympy Debian package! There's a new upstream version (1.0) available with new interesting features: could you please package it? Thanks for your time. P.S.: As an aside, I noticed that the tracker [1] claims that src:sympy is marked for autoremoval from testing on 23 April due to bug #817789 [2]; frankly speaking, I do not understand the relation between the bug and sympy, since python-blockdiag does not seem to be a (direct or indirect) dependency of any of src:sympy binary packages, nor a (direct) build-dependency... maybe it's an indirect build-dependency? Anyway, please investigate and, possibly, help to fix bug #817789 ! Once more, thanks for your time and dedication. [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/sympy [2] https://bugs.debian.org/817789 -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#822556: librecad: PDF export creates poor quality (non vector?) curves
Package: librecad Version: 2.0.9-2 Severity: normal Hello and thanks for maintaining LibreCAD in Debian! I noticed that the PDF export function seems to create poor quality curves. Please take a look at the attached minimal test case. File arcs.dxf includes two simple cicular arcs, created with librecad. If I select Export → Export as PDF from the File menu, I get a file (arcs.pdf) where the two arcs have poor rendering quality. The two curves do not seem to be vector lines: they almost seem to be a raster rendering or, maybe, a polygonal approximation (with a given number of small sides). Please compare with file arcs_convertedbyinkscape.pdf which is created by importing arcs.dxf into inkscape and exporting as PDF from there. The PDF file produced by inkscape seems to have real (vector) circular arcs, which are rendered fine at any zoom level by PDF viewers. Furthermore, the PDF file generated by inkscape is much smaller: $ ls -l arcs*pdf | cut -b 22- 1198 Apr 25 12:03 arcs_convertedbyinkscape.pdf 10424 Apr 25 11:56 arcs.pdf I think the PDF export function of librecad should be improved, in order to get high quality vector PDF files. Please investigate and/or forward my bug report upstream, as appropriate. Thanks for your time! Bye. P.S.: I think the attached test case is so trivial that it cannot be considered copyrighted; hence, no license from me should be required, in order for anyone to do anything he/she wishes with it. Anyway, should this turn out to not be true, I hereby release my minimal test case in the public domain with the CC0 declaration: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.txt -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.5.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages librecad depends on: ii libc6 2.22-7 ii libgcc1 1:5.3.1-14 ii libgl1-mesa-glx [libgl1] 11.1.3-1 ii libmuparser2v52.2.3-6 ii libqt5core5a 5.5.1+dfsg-16+b1 ii libqt5gui55.5.1+dfsg-16+b1 ii libqt5help5 5.5.1-3 ii libqt5printsupport5 5.5.1+dfsg-16+b1 ii libqt5svg55.5.1-2 ii libqt5widgets55.5.1+dfsg-16+b1 ii librecad-data 2.0.9-2 ii libstdc++65.3.1-14 librecad recommends no packages. librecad suggests no packages. -- no debconf information arcs.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document 999 dxfrw 0.6.3 0 SECTION 2 HEADER 9 $ACADVER 1 AC1021 9 $DWGCODEPAGE 3 ANSI_1252 9 $INSBASE 10 0 20 0 30 0 9 $EXTMIN 10 49.4291201744679 20 52.75062369969804 30 0 9 $EXTMAX 10 81.24630630607504 20 93.20282169986351 30 0 9 $LIMMIN 10 0 20 0 9 $LIMMAX 10 420 20 297 9 $ORTHOMODE 70 0 9 $REGENMODE 70 1 9 $FILLMODE 70 1 9 $QTEXTMODE 70 0 9 $MIRRTEXT 70 0 9 $LTSCALE 40 1 9 $ATTMODE 70 0 9 $TEXTSIZE 40 2.5 9 $TRACEWID 40 15.68 9 $TEXTSTYLE 7 STANDARD 9 $CLAYER 8 0 9 $CELTYPE 6 BYLAYER 9 $CECOLOR 62 256 9 $CELTSCALE 40 1 9 $DISPSILH 70 0 9 $DIMSCALE 40 2.5 9 $DIMASZ 40 2.5 9 $DIMEXO 40 0.625 9 $DIMDLI 40 3.75 9 $DIMRND 40 0 9 $DIMDLE 40 0 9 $DIMEXE 40 1.25 9 $DIMTP 40 0 9 $DIMTM 40 0 9 $DIMTXT 40 2.5 9 $DIMCEN 40 2.5 9 $DIMTSZ 40 0 9 $DIMTOL 70 0 9 $DIMLIM 70 0 9 $DIMTIH 70 0 9 $DIMTOH 70 0 9 $DIMSE1 70 0 9 $DIMSE2 70 0 9 $DIMTAD 70 1 9 $DIMZIN 70 8 9 $DIMBLK 1 9 $DIMASO 70 1 9 $DIMSHO 70 1 9 $DIMPOST 1 9 $DIMAPOST 1 9 $DIMALT 70 0 9 $DIMALTD 70 3 9 $DIMALTF 40 0.03937 9 $DIMLFAC 40 1 9 $DIMTOFL 70 1 9 $DIMTVP 40 0 9 $DIMTIX 70 0 9 $DIMSOXD 70 0 9 $DIMSAH 70 0 9 $DIMBLK1 1 9 $DIMBLK2 1 9 $DIMSTYLE 2 STANDARD 9 $DIMCLRD 70 0 9 $DIMCLRE 70 0 9 $DIMCLRT 70 0 9 $DIMTFAC 40 1 9 $DIMGAP 40 0.625 9 $DIMJUST 70 0 9 $DIMSD1 70 0 9 $DIMSD2 70 0 9 $DIMTOLJ 70 0 9 $DIMTZIN 70 8 9 $DIMALTZ 70 0 9 $DIMALTTZ 70 0 9 $DIMUPT 70 0 9 $DIMDEC 70 2 9 $DIMTDEC 70 2 9 $DIMALTU 70 2 9 $DIMALTTD 70 3 9 $DIMTXSTY 7 STANDARD 9 $DIMAUNIT 70 0 9 $DIMADEC 70 0 9 $DIMALTRND 40 0 9 $DIMAZIN 70 0 9 $DIMDSEP 70 44 9 $DIMATFIT 70 3 9 $DIMFRAC 70 0 9 $DIMLDRBLK 1 STANDARD 9 $DIMLUNIT 70 2 9 $DIMLWD 70 -2 9 $DIMLWE 70 -2 9 $DIMTMOVE 70 0 9 $DIMFXL 40 1 9 $DIMFXLON 70 0 9 $DIMJOGANG 40 0.7854 9 $DIMTFILL 70 0 9 $DIMTFILLCLR 70 0 9 $DIMARCSYM 70 0 9 $DIMLTYPE 6 9 $DIMLTEX1 6 9 $DIMLTEX2 6 9 $LUNITS
Bug#822568: librecad: PDF export lacks option to set page format to the minimum bounding box
Package: librecad Version: 2.0.9-2 Severity: wishlist Hello again, another thing I noticed, while testing the PDF export function of LibreCAD (please refer to the already sent test case of bug #822556 [1]): the PDF file is produced with the page format specified in the current drawing preferences (e.g.: A4). As a consequence, the PDF file may include large blank areas and/or fail to show some parts of the drawing, unless the user carefully places the drawing in the "virtual paper" (which, by the way, does not seem to be clearly shown in the GUI...). [1] https://bugs.debian.org/822556 I think that an option to automatically set the page format to the minimum bounding box that emcompasses all visible objects would be highly useful. It could be an option for the PDF export function, or a global option, I am not sure. But I really feel it would greatly improve the usefulness of librecad. Please forward my report upstream. Thanks for your time. Bye! -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.5.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages librecad depends on: ii libc6 2.22-7 ii libgcc1 1:5.3.1-14 ii libgl1-mesa-glx [libgl1] 11.1.3-1 ii libmuparser2v52.2.3-6 ii libqt5core5a 5.5.1+dfsg-16+b1 ii libqt5gui55.5.1+dfsg-16+b1 ii libqt5help5 5.5.1-3 ii libqt5printsupport5 5.5.1+dfsg-16+b1 ii libqt5svg55.5.1-2 ii libqt5widgets55.5.1+dfsg-16+b1 ii librecad-data 2.0.9-2 ii libstdc++65.3.1-14 librecad recommends no packages. librecad suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#824073: python-sympy: please package the galgebra module (as a separate binary package)
Package: python-sympy
Version: 1.0-1
Severity: wishlist
Hello and thanks again for packaging version 1.0 of sympy
(see bug #819515): the new features work as expected!
The only disadvantage is that the galgebra module has been
taken out.
$ isympy
[...]
In [1]: from sympy.galgebra.printing import *
---
ImportError Traceback (most recent call last)
in ()
> 1 from sympy.galgebra.printing import *
/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/sympy/galgebra.py in ()
> 1 raise ImportError("""As of SymPy 1.0 the galgebra module is
maintained separately at https://github.com/brombo/galgebra""";)
ImportError: As of SymPy 1.0 the galgebra module is maintained separately at
https://github.com/brombo/galgebra
It would be highly appreciated, if the galgebra module could be packaged
for Debian again, perhaps in a separate binary package.
I hope this can be done.
Thanks for your time and dedication!
Bye.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 4.5.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages python-sympy depends on:
ii isympy 1.0-1
ii python-mpmath 0.19-3
pn python:any
Versions of packages python-sympy recommends:
ii dvipng 1.14-2+b2
ii ipython 2.4.1-1
ii python [python-ctypes] 2.7.11-1
ii python-gmpy 1.17-1
ii python-imaging 3.2.0-2
ii python-numpy1:1.11.0-1
ii python-pyglet 1.1.4.dfsg-3
ii python-sympy-doc1.0-1
ii texlive-fonts-extra 2015.20160320-1
python-sympy suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#824711: coin3: the debian/copyright file incorrectly labels the license texts
Package: coin3 Version: 3.1.4~abc9f50+dfsg1-1 Severity: important Tags: patch Hello and thanks for maintaining Coin3 in Debian! I noticed that the debian/copyright file incorrectly labels the quoted license texts. According to the machine-readable format specification [1], the two quoted licenses should be labeled BSD-3-clause and Expat, respectively. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification I am attaching a patch that fixes the debian/copyright file. Please apply it, if you agree. Thanks for your time. Bye. copyright.diff.gz Description: application/gzip -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#751344: netgen: please re-enable the linking with libav libraries
Package: netgen Version: 4.9.13.dfsg-8 Severity: wishlist Hello Debian Science Maintainers, could you please re-enable the linking of netgen with libav libraries? As noted on bug #618968 [1], an up-to-date netgen package depending on oce packages version 0.15-x (currently in unstable and testing) is allowed to link with libav. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/618968#194 Having netgen with libav functionality enabled in jessie would be great. Thanks for your time! -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
