Debian Bug report logs - #566270
RM: libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl/unstable -- RoQA; License problems

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Patrick Schoenfeld <schoenfeld@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: RM: libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl/oldstable -- RoQA; License problems

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:27:47 +0100

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hi,

the above mentioned package is currently in a license unclear situation.
There is already a RC bug open for this: #563519
While the copyright falsely claims that is licensed under GPL|Artistic
license there is no such indication in the source. Someone
already tried contacting the upstreams (although the contact is fresh)
and got a bounce for one of the upstreams and no reply from the other.

Its kind of unfortune that this removal will remove other packages
as well (and affect packages which do have users)
but I think we simply *can not* keep the packages in any suite.

Packages affected:
libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl
libmaypole-perl
libmaypole-plugin-authentication-usersessioncookie-perl
libmaypole-plugin-upload-perl
maypole
maypole-authentication-usersessioncookie
maypole-plugin-upload
memories

I've checked popcon for maypole and the package itself and they
are below 100..

Best Regards,
Patrick

Message #14 received at 566270-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian Archive Maintenance <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 566270-close@bugs.debian.org

Cc: libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl@packages.debian.org, libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl@packages.qa.debian.org

Subject: Bug#566270: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:36:35 +0000

We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:

libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl |      1.3-2 | source, all

------------------- Reason -------------------
RoQA; License problems
----------------------------------------------

Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the tag
database and may (or may not) still be in the pool; this is not a bug.
The package(s) will be physically removed automatically when no suite
references them (and in the case of source, when no binary references
it).  Please also remember that the changes have been done on the
master archive (ftp-master.debian.org) and will not propagate to any
mirrors (ftp.debian.org included) until the next cron.daily run at the
earliest.

Packages are usually not removed from testing by hand. Testing tracks
unstable and will automatically remove packages which were removed
from unstable when removing them from testing causes no dependency
problems. The release team can force a removal from testing if it is
really needed, please contact them if this should be the case.

Bugs which have been reported against this package are not automatically
removed from the Bug Tracking System.  Please check all open bugs and
close them or re-assign them to another package if the removed package
was superseded by another one.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 566270@bugs.debian.org.

The full log for this bug can be viewed at http://bugs.debian.org/566270

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Message #19 received at 566270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>

To: Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <tolimar@debian.org>, 566303@bugs.debian.org, 566270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#566303: maypole: FTBFS and uninstalable: libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl got removed

Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:20:42 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:41 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Package: maypole
> Version: 2.11+2.111-2
> Severity: serious
> 
> Hi!
> 
> libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl just got removed due to #566270.
> Since your package build-depends on it, this just created an instant FTBFS.
> Sorry, but please look either for alternatives or fix the bugs in
> libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl.

I haven't heard from Simon recently but I may be able to track him down.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Any smoothly functioning technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #24 received at 566270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

To: Patrick Schoenfeld <schoenfeld@debian.org>

Cc: 566269@bugs.debian.org, 566264@bugs.debian.org, 566270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#566264: RM: libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl/oldstable -- RoQA; License problems

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:56:02 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:27:47PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Its kind of unfortune that this removal will remove other packages
> as well (and affect packages which do have users)
> but I think we simply *can not* keep the packages in any suite.

The module in question is a Perl 47 liners that only does some syntactic
"sugar" (I'd question even that) for DBI relationships.

>>> quote from documentation >>>
Now instead of saying

    BeerDB::Brewery->has_many(beers => "BeerDB::Beer");
    BeerDB::Beer->has_a(brewery => "BeerDB::Brewery");

    BeerDB::Handpump->has_a(beer => "BeerDB::Beer"); 
    BeerDB::Handpump->has_a(pub => "BeerDB::Pub");
    BeerDB::Pub->has_many(beers => [ BeerDB::Handpump => 'beer' ]);
    BeerDB::Beer->has_many(pubs => [ BeerDB::Handpump => 'pub' ]);


Just say

    $loader->relationship( "a brewery produces beers" );
    $loader->relationship( "a pub has beers on handpumps" );
>>> end quote >>>

We are distributing this thing since 2004.  Now you rush to remove it from
everywhere without caring about its reverse dependencies which would even
be easily fixable.  If someone had dropped a bomb upon us with this it
would've exploded some time ago already.

I won't rush to remove this from stable and oldstable just yet.  The timing
is a too unfortunate for this.  Let's replace the few relationships with
sane lines and not drop packages out of stable in a hurry (i.e. 3h between
bug filing and removal from unstable are weird).

If the ftpmasters choose to overrule me, so be it, but I encourage them
to look at the simplicity of the package and what it does first.  Yes,
there might be some regexps, but still.

> I've checked popcon for maypole and the package itself and they
> are below 100..

Not everyone believes^Wsubmits to popcon.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #29 received at 566270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Patrick Schoenfeld <schoenfeld@debian.org>

To: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>

Cc: 566269@bugs.debian.org, 566264@bugs.debian.org, 566270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#566264: RM: libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl/oldstable -- RoQA; License problems

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:56:01 +0100

Hi Philipp,

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:56:02PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:27:47PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Its kind of unfortune that this removal will remove other packages
> > as well (and affect packages which do have users)
> > but I think we simply *can not* keep the packages in any suite.
> 
> The module in question is a Perl 47 liners that only does some syntactic
> "sugar" (I'd question even that) for DBI relationships.

so what exactly is your point here? Might a 47 liner not need a license?

> We are distributing this thing since 2004.  Now you rush to remove it from
> everywhere without caring about its reverse dependencies which would even
> be easily fixable.  If someone had dropped a bomb upon us with this it
> would've exploded some time ago already.

Which is, honestly speaking, a bad thing that should not have happened
in the first place. Fact is: The licensing of the code is totally
unclear. We do not even have the right to distribute it, because we
never received a license at all. I cannot really understand how you
can argue for contempt of legality just because we already did it
a long time (and in fact tricked our users by writing something
about GPL|Artistic in the copyright file).

> I won't rush to remove this from stable and oldstable just yet.  The timing
> is a too unfortunate for this.  Let's replace the few relationships with
> sane lines and not drop packages out of stable in a hurry (i.e. 3h between
> bug filing and removal from unstable are weird).

Well, if the library is replaceable its a good idea to fix the
reverse depends. However I'm not sure if this can keep us from removing
it. But you wear the hat to decide that. I just spotted a - imho - major
problem and reported it.

> If the ftpmasters choose to overrule me, so be it, but I encourage them
> to look at the simplicity of the package and what it does first.  Yes,
> there might be some regexps, but still.
> 
> > I've checked popcon for maypole and the package itself and they
> > are below 100..
> 
> Not everyone believes^Wsubmits to popcon.

Thats known to all involved parties. But this argument does not help
much if the argument is "we are doing something we must not do"
and apart from that our only indication.

Regards,
Patrick

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.