Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #8230 > unrolled thread

Azureus

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.java

Contents

  Azureus Stephen Nelson <stephen@eccostudio.com> - 2015-08-13 01:40 +0200
    Re: Azureus Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> - 2015-08-17 23:30 +0200
      Re: Azureus Stephen Nelson <stephen@eccostudio.com> - 2015-08-18 11:40 +0200
        Re: Azureus Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> - 2015-08-20 22:00 +0200
          Re: Azureus Stephen Nelson <stephen@eccostudio.com> - 2015-08-28 22:20 +0200
            Re: Azureus Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> - 2015-08-28 22:40 +0200
    Re: Azureus Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2015-08-18 00:20 +0200
      Re: Azureus Stephen Nelson <stephen@eccostudio.com> - 2015-08-18 11:50 +0200
    Re: Azureus tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2015-08-18 04:40 +0200
      Re: Azureus Stephen Nelson <stephen@eccostudio.com> - 2015-08-18 11:50 +0200

#8230 — Azureus

I've updated Azureus/Vuze to the latest version 5.6.2.0, as well as:

- Removed bundled bouncy castle library
- Removed bundled commons library
- Removed bundled json simple library
- Build against swt4
- Updated the copyright file to correct licence on some files

 If anyone has time, please can you take a look at the packaging to
see if it is suitable to request sponsorship? It builds successfully
in a sid pbuilder.

It's available from git at:

http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/azureus.git

Stephen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8248

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Am 13.08.2015 um 01:35 schrieb Stephen Nelson:
> I've updated Azureus/Vuze to the latest version 5.6.2.0, as well as:
> 
> - Removed bundled bouncy castle library
> - Removed bundled commons library
> - Removed bundled json simple library
> - Build against swt4
> - Updated the copyright file to correct licence on some files
> 
>  If anyone has time, please can you take a look at the packaging to
> see if it is suitable to request sponsorship? It builds successfully
> in a sid pbuilder.
> 
> It's available from git at:
> 
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/azureus.git

Hi Stephen,

I could successfully compile the package but I need a little bit more
time to dig into Azureus/Vuze. I'll get back to you within the next days.

Regards,

Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8253

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, 22:25 Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> wrote:

Am 13.08.2015 um 01:35 schrieb Stephen Nelson:
> I've updated Azureus/Vuze to the latest version 5.6.2.0


>

I could successfully compile the package but I need a little bit more
time to dig into Azureus/Vuze. I'll get back to you within the next days.


Regards,

Markus


Thanks Markus.

I have a sid desktop and I've been able to install and run the built
package. I also started downloading a torrent to prove it's functional.

My concern is over the copyright as there are a number of different
copyright holders and licences. There are a handful of source files without
a header. I am requesting clarification from upstream for them.

Many thanks

Stephen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8273

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Am 18.08.2015 um 11:33 schrieb Stephen Nelson:
[...]
> Thanks Markus.
> 
> I have a sid desktop and I've been able to install and run the built
> package. I also started downloading a torrent to prove it's functional.
> 
> My concern is over the copyright as there are a number of different
> copyright holders and licences. There are a handful of source files
> without a header. I am requesting clarification from upstream for them.

Hi Stephen,

very good packaging, I only have some minor comments.

I have made some minor changes and pushed them to the git repository. I
hope that's OK. We should probably scale Azureus.png to 128x128 pixel
(currently it is 128x131) to avoid the Lintian warning.

06_unbundle_bouncy_castle.patch is without DEP-3 header.

I have created a copyright_TODO file which lists all files that are not
detected as GPL-2+ by licensecheck. Some of those files are GPL-2 only
but as you know there are a few with unknown or unclear copyright. If
you copy copyright_TODO into the root directory, for instance you can run

	vim -p `cat copyright_TODO`

to view all files which need a new license paragraph or clarification
from upstream.

Hope that helps a little.

Regards,

Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8292

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> wrote:
> Am 18.08.2015 um 11:33 schrieb Stephen Nelson:
> [...]
>
> I have made some minor changes and pushed them to the git repository. I
> hope that's OK. We should probably scale Azureus.png to 128x128 pixel
> (currently it is 128x131) to avoid the Lintian warning.
>

Thanks for updating those files. I didn't know about them so thanks
for the pointer.

> 06_unbundle_bouncy_castle.patch is without DEP-3 header.

Thanks for catching this. Sorry I missed the header on that patch file.

>
> I have created a copyright_TODO file which lists all files that are not
> detected as GPL-2+ by licensecheck. Some of those files are GPL-2 only
> but as you know there are a few with unknown or unclear copyright. If
> you copy copyright_TODO into the root directory, for instance you can run
>
>         vim -p `cat copyright_TODO`
>
> to view all files which need a new license paragraph or clarification
> from upstream.

That's really helpful. I have contacted upstream and hopefully they
will clarify those files.

For the code to be compliant with DFSG does each one need a valid
header, or is a statement from upstream sufficient? I also noticed a
lot of image files used in Azureus and was not sure of their licence
so I have asked about those too.

>
> Hope that helps a little.
>
> Regards,
>
> Markus
>

Thanks for the assistance. I certainly need it!

Stephen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8293

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Am 28.08.2015 um 22:16 schrieb Stephen Nelson:
[...]
> 
> For the code to be compliant with DFSG does each one need a valid
> header, or is a statement from upstream sufficient? I also noticed a
> lot of image files used in Azureus and was not sure of their licence
> so I have asked about those too.

A statement from upstream is sufficient. There is no DFSG requirement
that all files must carry a license header as long as there is another
source to clarify the license status. (README, LICENSE file, etc.)

Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8250

Le 13/08/2015 01:35, Stephen Nelson a écrit :
> I've updated Azureus/Vuze to the latest version 5.6.2.0, as well as:
> 
> - Removed bundled bouncy castle library
> - Removed bundled commons library
> - Removed bundled json simple library
> - Build against swt4
> - Updated the copyright file to correct licence on some files

Well done Stephen! Do you think it's possible to backport it to Jessie,
or does the packaging depend on too many new elements found only in
testing/unstable?

Emmanuel Bourg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8254

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, 23:11 Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:

Le 13/08/2015 01:35, Stephen Nelson a écrit :
> I've updated Azureus/Vuze to the latest version 5.6.2.0,

Well done Stephen! Do you think it's possible to backport it to Jessie,
or does the packaging depend on too many new elements found only in
testing/unstable?

Emmanuel Bourg


Hi Emmanuel

Thanks! I think much of the thanks should go to David Juran from Fedora/Red
hat java team. They had solved many of the bundling issues so I reused the
patches with minimal changes and providing attribution.

I think it could be back ported as I originally started work when Jessie
was still sid and it built and ran ok then.

I need to find out how to target a back port repository though.

Many thanks

Stephen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8252

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 08/12/2015 04:35 PM, Stephen Nelson wrote:
> I've updated Azureus/Vuze to the latest version 5.6.2.0, as well as:
> 
> - Removed bundled bouncy castle library
> - Removed bundled commons library
> - Removed bundled json simple library
> - Build against swt4
> - Updated the copyright file to correct licence on some files

Hi Stephen,

I haven't looked at the packaging yet, but I know that represents a lot
of work - awesome.

I wanted to mention one feature that had to be disabled in the current
(ancient) version in the archive, which is the facility that Azureus has
to update itself and its component jars.  I don't know what that feature
looks like in the new version, but it should be disabled in the default
configuration (or code, if it's not configurable).

Cheers,
tony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8255

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 03:33 tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> wrote:

On 08/12/2015 04:35 PM, Stephen Nelson wrote:
> I've updated Azureus/Vuze to the latest version 5.6.2.0,

Hi Stephen,

I haven't looked at the packaging yet, but I know that represents a lot
of work - awesome.

I wanted to mention one feature that had to be disabled in the current
(ancient) version in the archive, which is the facility that Azureus has
to update itself and its component jars.  I don't know what that feature
looks like in the new version, but it should be disabled in the default
configuration (or code, if it's not configurable).

Cheers,
tony


Hi Tony

Thanks a lot! With regards to the auto update I have retained those patches
and they apply successfully. I will need to check if additional features
have been added which attempt to update themselves since version 4.x.

I know the fedora java team have had similar problems so I might see how
they've solved it.

Many thanks

Stephen

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.java

csiph-web