Re: Robin Alexander

odr-audioenc_3.2.0-1_amd64.changes was REJECTED. The reason being:

"

license clause is compatible with DFSG:

You may use this FDK AAC Codec software or modifications thereto only for purposes that are authorized by appropriate patent licenses.

"

Actually, odr-audioenc depends on the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android which can be modified and distributed. I saw somewhere that debian nevertheless considers this license as being non-free. If that is the case, can the package still be pushed to Debian (maybe through a different
process) or not. If it cannot, then I believe that it makes no sense to keep the other 3 packages in the debian project and to remove them before
bookworm is finalized.

Hi Robin,

I haven't reviewed the license, but if the reject reason is true, the
package would have to be uploaded to non-free, and any (free) software depending on it would have to go to contrib (or to non-free as well).

Are there any alternative libraries that could be used instead?

Christoph

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Re: Robin Alexander

Let's assume that the reject reason is valid. What is the procedure I must follow to submit the odr-audioenc package to non-free? Is there any debian file I must amend for non-free as well ?

Section: non-free/whateversectionyouhavenow

On a more "philisophical" aspect, would it make sense to submit the other 3 odr packages to non-free as well, even if they don't rely on this fdk-aac library/license, in order to keep software distribution consistency. I would find rather odd, as a user, to grab 1 package from non-free and the other 3 from main...

Keep them in main if they are free. Putting free software into
non-free will raise a lot more questions.

(You might consider using contrib, but... ymmv.)

Christoph

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Re: Robin Alexander

Is there anything I can do to push forward the 2 packages (odr-dabmux and odr-dabmod) that are still sitting in NEW?

Possibly ftp-master is waiting for the rejected package to be
re-uploaded.

Do you believe that there is a chance that the 4 packages could be available on time for the next freeze? If not, is there a way to exclude the package odr-padenc (the only one that made it to unstable, so far) from the next version, for I would like to have a consistent set of packages (odr-padenc, alone, does not bring any value).

You could open an RC bug with subject "should stay out of testing".

Christoph

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

--=-Be9vRp4P4hGNnZiCdeiq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Out of the 4 packages that currently make the Opendigitalradio mmbtools project:
- odr-padenc (Program Associated Data encoder)
- odr-audioenc (Audio encoder)
- odr-dabmux (dab/dab+ multiplexer)
- odr-dabmod (dab/dab+ modulator)

I was able to get only 2 packages (odr-padenc, odr-dabmux) pushed to
testing and unstable.

Since one needs the 4 packages to run the full dab/dab+ broadcast
workflow and since bookworm is not too far away from being released, I
would like the above 2 packages excluded from the future bookworm. Can
someone from this group handle the matter?

Thank you very much in advance for your support.

Robin ALEXANDER

--=-Be9vRp4P4hGNnZiCdeiq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Christoph,

Thank you very much! I will modify file debian/control with the new
section non-free/hamradio and leave the other packages untouched. Then I
will resubmit the package to mentor.

Other questions:

Is there anything I can do to push forward the 2 packages (odr-dabmux
and odr-dabmod) that are still sitting in NEW?

Do you believe that there is a chance that the 4 packages could be
available on time for the next freeze? If not, is there a way to exclude
the package odr-padenc (the only one that made it to unstable, so far)
from the next version, for I would like to have a consistent set of
packages (odr-padenc, alone, does not bring any value).

Robin

On 17.10.22 22:48, Christoph Berg wrote:

Re: Robin Alexander

Let's assume that the reject reason is valid. What is the procedure I must >> follow to submit the odr-audioenc package to non-free? Is there any debian >> file I must amend for non-free as well ?

Section: non-free/whateversectionyouhavenow

On a more "philisophical" aspect, would it make sense to submit the other 3 >> odr packages to non-free as well, even if they don't rely on this fdk-aac
library/license, in order to keep software distribution consistency. I would >> find rather odd, as a user, to grab 1 package from non-free and the other 3 >> from main...

Keep them in main if they are free. Putting free software into
non-free will raise a lot more questions.

(You might consider using contrib, but... ymmv.)

Christoph

--
Robin ALEXANDER


--=-Be9vRp4P4hGNnZiCdeiq
Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="OpenPGP_0xB44D368855690D0F.asc" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_0xB44D368855690D0F.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP public key
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgUFVCTElDIEtFWSBCTE9DSy0tLS0tDQoNCnhzRk5CR0lwNUM4QkVBQ25o RTkwSkxwOGx6VWlGVTJ2NGJZRE00ME8zNDBoVG5mbHlNK3preVZEbGVOK3NwS3UNCkRaQ1BoQjB2 R3FWNjRJVUtaOExWQjJqaGhpN0UveGtTUitkTWZXNlZYZmRCVzhlR1RIWkVBUlpLYVBPS2QrdWIN CjEwKzZrNzBiMDZkb2hGTUZuNlB0R1lqRUZSREpsRFV6TmhwUGlERVdYYkk5enF1RS9icHdUQkdq L0lLOWVNU0cNCkc3TDZuL21jNnovck9DN3BhMHVEODkrVkEra1VXL0wxc0huOWplZ3VhNFhOWkZI ZEprc3NNL3phNG5ScXBjMHkNCnFIR2NNRWZPaXBYdmtiUDAycGR6N2s0SGRCUTY5QjJNMjhpMFpT em1RUmZNRlBmWG92djdoREtMcXNhWGFLeWYNCjYwSWZvMG9uamhURFpUZnpNQUdsRUpnekRPaHdq c2VmNU53S2ZDSllVbnhrMksxai9sZUVtZ2lsVmhlQ0dOYk4NCnVObkdscDdoeURBV0VYUHhJbjJ3 Nzh1V3FkV1RPVEFmRTJWY1dIZ1NNdjFDVFRhTmNxWUpESWhjLy9FQ0M3cUUNCm5VUUcyWHpPMWVa R094NWd4cUxRVmdDNFRnaFZjQnVwVk5JM0g2Q1ZiT

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 12:58 PM Robin ALEXANDER
<[email protected]> wrote:

Since one needs the 4 packages to run the full dab/dab+ broadcast
workflow and since bookworm is not too far away from being released, I
would like the above 2 packages excluded from the future bookworm. Can someone from this group handle the matter?

The fastest solve here is to file an RC bug on the version in testing,
and communicate with the release team via emailing [email protected] with the related bug(s). This group
would wind up doing the same thing, but take longer in doing so :)

Thank you very much in advance for your support.

Robin ALEXANDER
Hi Christoph,

Paul K3XEC

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your quick reply.

Le vendredi 17 mars 2023 à 13:10 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :

The fastest solve here is to file an RC bug on the version in
testing,
and communicate with the release team via emailing [email protected] with the related bug(s). This group
would wind up doing the same thing, but take longer in doing so :)
Paul K3XEC

As I am a complete novice, do you confirm I need to:
1. Submit 2 bugs with reportbug (one for each package I wish to exclude
from bookworm)
2. Send an email to the debian-release list mentioning the 2 bug ids I
created with reportbug?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEExV6jEeNThQiu/fWKtE02iFVpDQ8FAmQUpuoACgkQtE02iFVp DQ/FpA/+JZeChnQsTIbHT6DOBnnAb4aiVL+rXHcznhlX76zX3NGhwLvk+SS95QhK RlOCynhA7DLJgvC3rZueRjeIJ3nZF7/9AyXSEfgxI4yHXQnwz2oj+66CCgLOfLIW a7SoEr4TsjtlYOO2ocgcEjxnRhrGZG8+8/PhBlosA2fJabvY4rA6n82N/ITNE2Jd TBjio/1FFFl9D/0cGLCj0IaGfmt8VEyzVwtbfqnSZ73oeQr4+rcHHwJgeR/DM8Z2 X+K9JZEpbwq5zWvI1NQ0swHxKdGSbxle6AMkHnoSxkIjg6rrK7sxjrEugyLulxrs oVp2XzGHqEBtweOOCKUwPpGCiOD0fj+ZV7r2BXx/Ms32wYGBwcEoDHc+461Ev44G Px5AgQyujJX0n0ysGwPvswwYdss5hZSAqsvFYmdZR8fQmbCHJj+4hyv/tX9/rZ0m E4fj/wMrsubnsu+zloBiUwUvgyzrZHKUtV0F4Avh+/3O6pticbzckn9BONthhgtO XXFEUVz4A74pJ4fA9Tt8n4H+lpahAcaSqkIkV2dg6r53+lEcGhL/Ufc3E8RU2Xr/ VfX3vEEP9dHdCOOk6kHuq4nhVj4BVWyLr3ojPLpqpKXRv5k4ZYS0HiAycDNj+Bds XDmymforhtQAwIfdbdjIP5Q/lWjWRySbVXQCdRHdRiTsDoPXQKU=
=nHfV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 1:44 PM Robin ALEXANDER
<[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your quick reply.

Quite! Happy to help.

Le vendredi 17 mars 2023 à 13:10 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
As I am a complete novice, do you confirm I need to:
1. Submit 2 bugs with reportbug (one for each package I wish to exclude
from bookworm)

Yep! If the bugs don't file, you can also send email reports via email
(with [email protected]).
An example can be found in some of the BTS docs (https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting#example)

This will be fun! Please feel free to CC me, or ask me questions (on
or off list) if you hit any trouble.

2. Send an email to the debian-release list mentioning the 2 bug ids I created with reportbug?

Yep! You'll get an email back (hopefully!), and you can link to, or
mention, the BTS bug numbers

Paul K3XEC
--
:wq

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)