[needs-packaging] TV-Browser

http://sourceforge.net/project/platformdownload.php?group_id=79472&sel_platform=558

Because I was told in #motu that uploading to REVU just before the gutsy release shouldn't be done i've built a tarball of everything dput would upload. You cand find that here:
http://www2.ba-horb.de/~i06015/tvbrowser_deb.tar.gz

I'd be glad to recieve any feedback and/or mentoring.

i've also uploaded the package to my ppa:
http://ppa.launchpad.net/schnitz/ubuntu/pool/main/t/tvbrowser/tvbrowser_2.5.3-1.dsc

package for hardy uploaded to revu
http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=405

- packaging changes contains debian/patched/10_start_script_working_dir.dpatch and deployment/linux/tvbrowser.sh - broken unpatch rule?
- debian/copyright incomplete, no authors and no copyright holders
- some files don't contain copyright header, but there's at least ./txt/LICENSE.txt

Not buildable without user interaction:

Unpacking sun-java5-bin (from .../sun-java5-bin_1.5.0-13-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ...

sun-dlj-v1-1 license could not be presented
try 'dpkg-reconfigure debconf' to select a frontend other than noninteractive

:-(

Upstream issues, probably worth talking to the author:
- ./images/themes/tango looks like copied from tango, is there no possibilty to use the icons we have in the archive already? (not mentioned in copyright either)
- ./deployment/x11/autom4te.cache probably not necessary in the shipped tarball

New link: http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?package=tvbrowser

Bumping back to Triaged for now. Set back to 'In Progress' once a new revision has been uploaded.

I've talked to Fabian and he acknowledged that I can take over this package.
 - ./images/themes/tango is not exactly copied: it includes several files which are not in the tango-icon-theme(-extras) package, e.g. document-edit.png; also some files are different. I will talk to upstream about this though.

I've completed debian/copyright and changed it to use the proposed format at http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat.

The new package has been uploaded to REVU.

There are license issues, and I'm in the process of solving them together with upstream:
 - there are quite a lot of .jars used/included without source,
   license, and/or copyright!
   According to upstream those are all GPL/Apache, so I just need to work out what is what.

 - Incompatible licenses!
   At least src/tvbrowser/core/ValueCache.java and lib/junit.jar are
   licensed under "Common Public License Version 1.0" which is
   incompatible to GPL according to
   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html!
   Upstream is working on fixing the ValueCache conflict and JUnit is only used for tests, so it looks like I have to create a dfsg-repacked source.

 - According to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html the
   CC-BY-SA used by tango is incompatible to GPL, but it says
   so for 2.0 (we have 2.5 here) and "software or documentation",
   not "artwork".
   I'm not sure about this, but also http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary says that things licensed CC-BY-SA should not get uploaded (according to debian-legal). Obviously we (and Debian) have tango-icon-theme though..!?
   I don't know what to do about this..

Anyway, the package is updated at http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=tvbrowser

A package is now available at http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=tvbrowser - this includes the new upstream release, where all license issues should have been addressed.
The packaging is available on https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~blueyed/tvbrowser/ubuntu - feel free to branch and improve from there, or just leave a comment on REVU.

Intrepid FeatureFreeze is in 5 days. Is there hope that we see tvbrowser in 8.10?

A new package is up for review at http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=tvbrowser now.

The package has now been approved in REVU.

I've subscribed motu-release to get a FreezeException for this new package.

Because it's a new package, no other packages depend on it and it's a useful program, which I'd like to see in Intrepid.

Part of the point of Feature Freeze is that the archive admins who do New review need to move on to other work later in the release cycle. What makes it so important we add to their workload for this particular package?

Summarising my conversation with Scott on IRC:
TV-Browser should go in because it is the only good TV schedule program on Linux I know that has German TV stations. It has a few very nifty features like favourite show lists, reminders, recording using external programs and integration of IMDB and Google search. It is widely used as far as I can tell.
Besides that it should have been included in Ubuntu a few releases ago but was not due to licensing issues which seem to be fixed now.
There was an unofficial repository for it which does not offer updates since hardy and I assume this will not change in the near future.

Thanks for taking this into consideration.

+1 from me, based that it's still very early in FF, and that there is one advocation (apart from the self-advocation :P) on revu, so it looks like the package seems to be in good shape already.

Ack from me. Approved by motu-release. Please keep in mind that there are no guarantees that the archive admins will have time for New processing for packages uploaded post-FF.

In addition to the reasons given by others, I can see that upstream invested a lot of time in improving the licensing of the package and I would like to see that kind of behavior encouraged.

I would really love to see this one in the next Ubuntu release. +1 also from me. Thanks for continuing the work on this package Daniel!

Package was rejected by archive for copyright problems:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-archive/2008-September/021524.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Cesare Tirabassi wrote:

> Package was rejected by archive for copyright problems:
>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-archive/2008-September/021524.html

I've notified upstream about this and they're looking into it (e.g. if
libraries are included already in Ubuntu).

Jonathan wrote:

> Also full copies of the GPL and LGPL are important.

Isn't it enough to refer to the ones provided by Debian/Ubuntu? Or does
this only hold for debian/copyright and the source tarball needs them
anyway?

- --
http://daniel.hahler.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIzuekfAK/hT/mPgARAjA2AKCSpNqGWRyU31zMWDBquWGWenmtHACdGQNT
6LMrPeRvRSpS1SDSXp3v5qk=
=D00I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The tarball should contain a verbatim copy of the licenses (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html).
This is really an upstream problem though, which I believe our archive admins are trying to enforce.

I'm unsubscribing motu-release for now, waiting for action by upstream.

JFI: I've updated the package in my PPA to the 2.7.1 upstream release.
If you want to use it: https://launchpad.net/~blueyed/+archive?field.name_filter=tvbrowser

I'd like to bring up this topic again... are there any chances to include tvbrowser to the ubuntu respositories?

There haven't been any comments on this bug since ages so I'm not sure if the licensing issues are solved.

Cool, would it come pre-installed on Kubuntu too?