On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:44:50 +0200
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:

> It was added 16 March, that is 3+ weeks ago! :/
> So, debian-devel@lists.debian.org: can someone tell me why
> libcwd was added as amd64 package, but still doesn't exist
> as x86 package please?

Because it is non-free?

--
Michal ÄŒihaÅ™ | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com

It was added 16 March, that is 3+ weeks ago! :/
So, debian-devel@lists.debian.org: can someone tell me why
libcwd was added as amd64 package, but still doesn't exist
as x86 package please?

taryn:~>uname -a
Linux taryn 2.6.22-1-686 #1 SMP Sun Jul 29 14:37:42 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
taryn:~>apt-cache policy libcwd

libcwd:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: (none)
Version table:

hikaru:~>uname -a
Linux hikaru 2.6.22-3-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Feb 12 09:22:35 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux
hikaru:~>apt-cache policy libcwd
libcwd:
Installed: 1.0.1-1
Candidate: 1.0.1-1
Version table:
*** 1.0.1-1 0
990 http://ftp.nl.debian.org testing/non-free Packages
500 http://ftp.nl.debian.org unstable/non-free Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:44:15PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> [2008.04.06.0300 +0200]:
> > Hmm, I guess. It's should be there for every platform.
>
> Give it a few days. I am pretty sure this is related to some buildd
> problems.
>
> If it isn't fixed in a few days, maybe consider writing to
> debian-devel@lists.d.o to find out what's going on?

--
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On 10/04/2008, Carlo Wood wrote:
> It was added 16 March, that is 3+ weeks ago! :/
> So, debian-devel@lists.debian.org: can someone tell me why
> libcwd was added as amd64 package, but still doesn't exist
> as x86 package please?

Because there are additional requirements for non-free packages to be
autobuilt. See the following announcement for more info.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/11/msg00012.html

Cheers,

--
Cyril Brulebois

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:50:07PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 10/04/2008, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > It was added 16 March, that is 3+ weeks ago! :/
> > So, debian-devel@lists.debian.org: can someone tell me why
> > libcwd was added as amd64 package, but still doesn't exist
> > as x86 package please?
>
> Because there are additional requirements for non-free packages to be
> autobuilt. See the following announcement for more info.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/11/msg00012.html

I did what it says there.

This is the mail to nonfree@release.debian.net as requested.
Package: libcwd
It can be autobuild because I see no reason why not.

Author, copyright holder, maintainer, tired of this, and all what not,

--
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:

> Author, copyright holder, maintainer, tired of this, and all what not,

Do you mind if I ask why you chose the QPL instead of a DFSG-free licence?

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

"Paul Wise" <pabs@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
>
> > Author, copyright holder, maintainer, tired of this, and all what not,
>
> Do you mind if I ask why you chose the QPL instead of a DFSG-free licence?

According to the FSF, the Q Public License version 1.0 is a free
software license:

Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0

This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible
with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience,
because modified sources can only be distributed as patches.

<URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/>

Debian's wiki, on the DFSGLicense page, categorises QPLv1 in the
"unsettled" section:

The QPL is not GPL-compatible, which, regardless of one's opinion
about the license's DFSG-freeness, poses a major practical problem
for any code licensed under the QPL that is reused elsewhere in
conjunction with code under the GNU GPL. This makes the QPL alone
a particularly poor choice of license for a library.

<URL:http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-32008704067079bbbb028804a5dc10bb340d4086>

All that aside, though, if Carlo Wood is "tired of all this", he would
be best advised to choose to license his work under terms whose
freedom status *is* settled.

--
"I filled my humidifier with wax. Now my room is all shiny." |
` -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org