2009-01-07 17:00:55 |
Jonathan Riddell |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
2009-01-07 17:21:27 |
Jonathan Riddell |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber MIR approval team |
2009-01-09 12:45:10 |
Alexander Sack |
google-gadgets: status |
New |
Incomplete |
|
2009-01-09 12:45:10 |
Alexander Sack |
google-gadgets: statusexplanation |
|
-xul package lacks binary depends on xulrunner-1.9.
fwiw, how essential is the -xul support? It uses its own glue wrapper to load and use mozjs (which is better than directly linking against mozjs using -rpath) ... mozjs however has no api policy and putting this in main might cause issues on xulrunner sec updates.
Maybe we can disable -xul part of the build or simply not ship that bin package in main until mozjs devs have come up with a policy? |
|
2009-01-16 15:31:25 |
Jonathan Riddell |
google-gadgets: status |
Incomplete |
In Progress |
|
2009-01-16 15:31:25 |
Jonathan Riddell |
google-gadgets: statusexplanation |
-xul package lacks binary depends on xulrunner-1.9.
fwiw, how essential is the -xul support? It uses its own glue wrapper to load and use mozjs (which is better than directly linking against mozjs using -rpath) ... mozjs however has no api policy and putting this in main might cause issues on xulrunner sec updates.
Maybe we can disable -xul part of the build or simply not ship that bin package in main until mozjs devs have come up with a policy? |
I'm fine with keeping the XUL package in universe.
third_party/xdgmime is actually LGPL 2 or later, I've uploaded a new version with a corrected debian/copyright. LGPL should be able to link with an Apache licenced library and GPL 3 is compatible with Apache 2 licence. |
|
2009-01-21 12:57:54 |
Alexander Sack |
google-gadgets: status |
In Progress |
Incomplete |
|
2009-01-21 12:57:54 |
Alexander Sack |
google-gadgets: statusexplanation |
I'm fine with keeping the XUL package in universe.
third_party/xdgmime is actually LGPL 2 or later, I've uploaded a new version with a corrected debian/copyright. LGPL should be able to link with an Apache licenced library and GPL 3 is compatible with Apache 2 licence. |
Thanks for fixing the licensing. LGPL 2 should be ok if xdgmime is not a consumer of apache licensed code, just not the other way around; also being a consumer would be possible with LGPL 3 or later ... so since its "or later" should be fine too.
@-xul binary in universe: Technically possible, I don't like the idea of having an unsupportable binary in universe built from a source in main; that should be really the exception; I would still prefer to see the -xul package being disabled for now or would that break rdepends in universe?
|
|
2009-01-22 13:57:24 |
Jonathan Riddell |
bug |
|
|
added attachment 'google-gadgets.debdiff' (remove xul from google-gadgets) |
2009-01-22 13:57:56 |
Jonathan Riddell |
google-gadgets: status |
Incomplete |
New |
|
2009-01-22 13:57:56 |
Jonathan Riddell |
google-gadgets: statusexplanation |
Thanks for fixing the licensing. LGPL 2 should be ok if xdgmime is not a consumer of apache licensed code, just not the other way around; also being a consumer would be possible with LGPL 3 or later ... so since its "or later" should be fine too.
@-xul binary in universe: Technically possible, I don't like the idea of having an unsupportable binary in universe built from a source in main; that should be really the exception; I would still prefer to see the -xul package being disabled for now or would that break rdepends in universe?
|
Patch attached which would remove xul from it if that's what is needed.
|
|
2009-01-26 11:01:46 |
Alexander Sack |
google-gadgets: status |
New |
Incomplete |
|
2009-01-26 11:01:46 |
Alexander Sack |
google-gadgets: statusexplanation |
Patch attached which would remove xul from it if that's what is needed.
|
rejecting google gadgets for the time being because mozjs doesnt have stable ABI/API policy - which should be easy to fix once they come up with a proper policy. Hopefully we can rely on mozjs in jaunty+1 |
|
2009-09-23 10:10:11 |
Martin Pitt |
google-gadgets (Ubuntu): status |
Incomplete |
Won't Fix |
|