Hello Antonio, Stefano, On Wed 15 Jul 2020 at 10:57AM -07, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> I think your analysis is correct. The source is Apache-2.0 licensed, but > with a renaming requirement. There is a collaborative effort to maintain > a renamed source, cinc, which we've been shipping, but we haven't > followed through on a complete renaming. > > This is an RoM request, the maintainers have lost interest in working > with an upstream that imposes rules like this. Normally a maintainer losing interest in this way would mean orphaning, not removal, which makes things easier for someone who wants to pick it up. In this case, however, it seems the package would have to go through NEW anyway so that the packages could be renamed -- even if the arguments posted to the Ubuntu bug by Steve Langasek are valid, and we don't change binary paths, we would surely want to rename the source packages. So I'm going ahead with removal. This action by one member of the FTP Team should not be interpreted as any sort of Debian project opinion, or even FTP Team opinion, about the acceptability of the versions of the packages I'm removing. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
