On 9 May 2016 at 04:31, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote: >>Waiting for his reply. > > > this seems the most important bit, I would appreciate you opening a bug > report against > the package (severity:important), explaining why you want a version in > experimental, > leaving xnox the time to answer properly, and don't forget to propose > yourself as > comaintainer.
Ok, I'll do this when this package is ready to upload. >>This was discussed with the D-I team some time ago, and they said it >>was better to patch partman-btrfs and debian-cd. Both have been >>patched and are now in the archive. > > > ok, so please ask ftpmasters to remove it, otherwise the old source package > will still be in the archive. > (and the old binary too) > Per https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals , I filed Bug #823848 "as an RC bug on the package". >>What is the convenience script used to do copyright review? :-) I'll >>fix these in my next upload. > > > not sure, maybe "cme fix" can work, or license-reconsile, even if I usually > look at the diff between the > current version in archive and the version that I have to sponsor. I did two runs of license-reconsile, after fixing the MIT/X11 license issue for config/install-sh. In the first run I kept the existing GPL-2+ designations; wc -l returned 212 lines. For the second run I changed most instances of GPL-2+ to GPL-2; wc -l returned 126. Based on this, and the fact that the official btrfs-progs*/COPYING file states: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 I believe this package was wrongly designated as GPL-2+ in debian/copyright quite some time ago... I've attached the output of those license-reconsile runs. Thank you for notifying me of this Gianfranco. It also affects oldstable and stable. Is this an RC/serious level bug for all affected versions? I will open the bug for this once I've patched all affected versions, since it's something I'm now already working on :-) Might as well fix them all at the same time, right! Please confirm that I'm not mistaken in my conclusions regarding the licensing of this package. Kind regards, Nicholas
with_GPL2.xz
Description: application/xz
with_GPL2+.xz
Description: application/xz
