Include aiccu in multiverse

Thye claim the license is open-source and bsd-like, but clearly debian think otherwise and have put it in non-free:

http://www.sixxs.net/tools/aiccu/LICENSE

https://wiki.kubuntu.org/MOTU/Packages/Candidates

I added you package and I'll work on getting it installed in multiverse if I can.

http://www.sixxs.net/tools/aiccu/ says that the debian package is outdated and broken. They have the source on their website.

it's packaged, we are working on figuring out with what do with the package now.

I don't see the part where you say it is broken or outdated but I'll look into it.

http://www.sixxs.net/tools/aiccu/

Downloads/Debian

"Included in Debian as aiccu but note that it is outdated, unsupported and broken, which is why we suggest to put an Apt-Pin for this package to fetch it from the correct repository."

I understand it is non-free, but isn't multiverse designed for that kind of things ?

Yes, that is not the problem. The problem is that as Caroline said,
"Included in Debian as aiccu but note that it is outdated, unsupported and
broken," Now, what I said is that the license is different because it is
"BSD like" and not GPL but I researched it and I see that the license is
free as in speech. The only other thing to do is package the program and
send it to see if the package is approved for the multiverse. this is a
multi-step process and will take some time.

On 11/20/06, José Pablo Ezequiel "Pupeno" Fernández Silva <email address hidden>
wrote:
>
> I understand it is non-free, but isn't multiverse designed for that kind
> of things ?
>
> --
> Include aiccu in multiverse
> https://launchpad.net/bugs/72518
>

--
-Freddy Martinez-
Kubuntu. [GNU/]Linux for human beings.
</message>

I have sent an petition regarding the license to SixXS and among the reply they said: "If you want to use AICCU, then point your apt-get to the SixXS repository."

I wasn't aware, but it seems they are providing packages themselves, I'd like into those for inclusion into Ubuntu.

aiccu's in feisty/multiverse, but as you note may need fixed up.

Attaching aiccu_20070107.debdiff for latest upstream release. Ready for Feisty upload to multiverse pending approval.

uploaded for review by RJ.

I, as the author of AICCU am really wondering:

* Why you are using diff's for this thing, while the original source tarball already contains perfectly working Debian packages
  (which are also available on the official site: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/aiccu/)

* Why the LICENSE file is missing, or did Ubuntu break the LICENSE by just taking it out?

* Why the COPYRIGHT file is changed, or does Ubuntu not need to abide by international COPYRIGHT law?

And of course above all:
* Where the peep you have gotten that broken 'diff' which will never work and will cause even more complaints to be sent to <email address hidden> about some broken version somewhere on this planet, while my name is on it and other people broke it.

Thank you very much.

Joeroen,

This is a debdiff, all it does is create a patch against the differences between the previous version and the current version. The reason you don't see that stuff is due to it being in the previous and it hasn't been changed with the current. debdiff only pulls in the differences and applies them to the current version in the repositories. If the license and copyright files, which I am sure they are, are already in the repos there is no need to reupload them. This is done to save space here in the bug reports. If there wasn't a license or copyright in the package, then it wouldn't be in the repositories in the first place.

Richard Johnson wrote:
> Joeroen,

I know, it is a difficult name to cut&paste...

Constructive & important part below, if you don't want to read the rant
part, hit CTRL-F/the search menu/emacs-s/slash-s whatever and look for
"Constructive Part".

I hope that you understand why the tone of this message is far from
nice, but try answering people that there is a bug, that it is fixed in
the official release, but that for some weird reason some people are
releasing broken versions in your (read my) name! It is heavily
frustrating, that is why you folks get this rant.

Skip reading the following part if you want to be constructive and get
to the point in resolving this issue.

Rant section is additionally marked with "</end of rant>"
Skip to "Constructive Part" to avoid.

<start of rant>

> This is a debdiff, all it does is create a patch against the differences
> between the previous version and the current version. The reason you
> don't see that stuff is due to it being in the previous and it hasn't
> been changed with the current

You say that the 'debdiff' only includes the 'changes' in the new
upstream. Well then lets take a look at the at what the the old "PATCH"
actually does:
ftp://ie.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/a/aiccu/aiccu_20050131-1.diff.gz

The few sections of it:

--- aiccu-20050131.orig/debian/docs
+++ aiccu-20050131/debian/docs
@@ -1,3 +1,2 @@
 doc/README
-doc/LICENSE
 doc/HOWTO

It throws away the LICENSE as specified by the authors of the program.

--- aiccu-20050131.orig/debian/changelog
+++ aiccu-20050131/debian/changelog
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+aiccu (20050131-1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Initial release
+
+ -- Anand Kumria <email address hidden> Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:56:20 +1100
+

It throws out the original changelog and replaces it with nonsense.

And what is this:

--- aiccu-20050131.orig/debian/copyright
+++ aiccu-20050131/debian/copyright
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+This package was debianized by Anand Kumria <email address hidden> on
+Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:56:20 +1100

Who is that person? Gary Coady(*) added the debconf support and we
(SixXS) did the debian packaging, as the diff shows, that name is only
slapped on to change the COPYRIGHT file, as shown above and include a
!CHANGED! license in a !COPYRIGHT! file. Licenses != COPYRIGHT.

* = http://www.lyranthe.org/diary/2005/04/17/ipv6-on-ubuntu/
If there is anybody that did something on the packaging then it is Gary
Coady who deserves credit, not somebody who even did even has a SixXS
account to test anything of it, and clearly, as the diff shows only
added his name to it. Next to that the person contacted SixXS to ask if
the package could be included in Debian.

The Diff also patches this in, which does NOT come from us:
8<------------------------------------------------
+[ summary: BSD-like but with two clauses (4) and (5) which make aiccu
non-free ]
------------------------------------------------>8

That is clear nonsense and is NOT the license that SixXS applied, as
such it violates the license that SixXS applied to AICCU.

Also note:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=388759 also clearly
where Steve Langasek (<email address hidden>) states:
8<--------...

Jeroen,

First I apologize for finger-fumbling your name. I did not know that the "Current" or the 2005xxxx version was in fact wrong. The version I used to create a debdiff was from "YOUR" website. I noted that in the debdiff it adds your license back in. This debdiff has created a "patch" file to patch the 2005xxxx release that is currently in the repos and makes it the same as the 2007xxxx version that is currently available.

diff -Nru /tmp/aItGSFRQZk/aiccu-20050131/debian/docs /tmp/FIJov39Sz5/aiccu-20070107/debian/docs
--- /tmp/aItGSFRQZk/aiccu-20050131/debian/docs 2007-01-07 16:13:05.000000000 -0600
+++ /tmp/FIJov39Sz5/aiccu-20070107/debian/docs 2005-04-10 16:42:29.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
 doc/README
+doc/LICENSE
 doc/HOWTO
diff -Nru /tmp/aItGSFRQZk/aiccu-20050131/debian/postrm.debhelper /tmp/FIJov39Sz5/aiccu-20070107/debian/postrm.debhelper
--- /tmp/aItGSFRQZk/aiccu-20050131/debian/postrm.debhelper 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600
+++ /tmp/FIJov39Sz5/aiccu-20070107/debian/postrm.debhelper 2006-07-25 04:29:12.000000000 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# Automatically added by dh_installdebconf
+if [ "$1" = purge ] && [ -e /usr/share/debconf/confmodule ]; then
+ . /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
+ db_purge
+fi
+# End automatically added section

Also note that this debdiff also includes the correct changelog as provided by the 2007xxxx.tar.gz file I downloaded from your website.

What Ubuntu has done in the past was not done by me, so I can't tell you word for word what their Policy on the Licensing is, as that is up for the "higher-ups" to work out. All I did was create a debdiff from the current version in the repositories against the version available from your website.

As for my answer of saving space as non-sense, hey you are more than welcome to be entitled to your opinions. Referencing the package may be simple, but me downloading the package and creating a debdiff for the developers to just then upload is even easier. No need to be a middle man if I am able to do the work needed in order help out.

I know you may be upset, but just note that Malone, the Ubuntu Bug Tracker, is not the place to voice your rants. It would be easier to be worked out by (a)emailing myself since I created the debdiff and working out, (b)emailing one of the many developement lists or MOTU list for a solution, or (c) don't rant, but instead copy and paste the last half of your post here as "hey this is how it should be."

Also note, that you can also provide the fix as well, attach it here and move on.

Thank you.

Richard Johnson wrote:
> Jeroen,
>
> First I apologize for finger-fumbling your name. I did not know that the
> "Current" or the 2005xxxx version was in fact wrong.

Which is why I am reporting this issue before it goes any further.
And I sincerely hope that it gets resolved in a proper manner.
The nasty tone is because I am fed up with all this political nonsense
and then seeing my code get broken because an upstream uploads it
wrongly. Pointing to other places to report bugs is not helping.
Saying that this is not the place to report this is not helping either.

Please resolve this!

> The version I used to create a debdiff was from "YOUR" website.

The version you used then was broken, as it does not result in the
official release. Trust me and try it yourself.

The code that results from applying the 'debdiff' that you made to:
ftp://ie.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/a/aiccu/

is VERY different from the code at the original sources:
http://www.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/unix/aiccu_20070107.tar.gz
or the https version;
https://noc.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/unix/aiccu_20070107.tar.gz

PLEASE verify that and check your md5sum's. What you are patching does
NOT result in the same code.

There is a real reason why I am writing these messages. Please check it.

> I noted that in the debdiff
> it adds your license back in.

[..]
> Also note that this debdiff also includes the correct changelog as
> provided by the 2007xxxx.tar.gz file I downloaded from your website.

The changelog gets removed by the "patches" that will be done by the
following "debian" patch:
ftp://ie.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/a/aiccu/aiccu_20050131-1.diff.gz

and that patch is NOT removed by the patch you are proposing.

> What Ubuntu has done in the past was not done by me, so I can't tell you
> word for word what their Policy on the Licensing is, as that is up for
> the "higher-ups" to work out.

If you claim to be the current maintainer, which according to launchpad
you are not, then it is your responsibility to make sure that that is
correct. If you are not able/capable to do so, then please explain
clearly in the bug report who the "higher ups" are who are responsible
and point those "higher ups" to this and make sure that it gets fixed.

I don't want to be involved in this bureaucracy mess, I just want to
have people actually being able to use the correct code. Not having to
have to do patches all over the place at distro's who make broken
patches. And certainly not having them complain that it is broken.

If you have a reason for providing a patch which breaks the code, then
please elaborate on why you took that decision. I am very interested in
hearing also why the LICENSE and COPYRIGHT is changed by somebody who
does not own the code and did not set the LICENSE nor owns any part of
the COPYRIGHT.

> All I did was create a debdiff from the
> current version in the repositories against the version available from
> your website.

As I mentioned before, and here again:

 It does *NOT* regenerate the original tarball.

> I know you may be upset, but just note that Malone, the Ubuntu Bug
> Tracker, is not the place to voice your rants....

Richard Johnson wrote:
[..]

Short reply, maybe a bit less nasty:

Did you TRY the code that results from your patches?

It might compile, yes, but does it actually work? -> NO
And every person knowing how tunneling code works can tell you that by
just reading the source.

Do you understand the changes that you made to the code break the
functionality of the program?

Really, compare the official release with the version that you created
by doing the 'debdiff' and you will see that it is NOT the same.

Greets,
 Jeroen

reopening as needs info and a wishlist. unsubscribing.

* Jeroen Massar

(Full discussion is at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aiccu/+bug/72518 ; Cc to
<email address hidden> ; please respect reply-to. )

| What I, as the author of AICCU, would like to see Ubuntu do:
| Use the OFFICIAL release of AICCU.
|
| This can be found at: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/aiccu/
| or as a APT repository:
|
| deb http://www.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/debian/ unstable main
| deb-src http://www.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/debian/ unstable main

If a MOTU sponsors this request, I'm happy to have it synced from
here and blacklisted from the automatic Debian imports. I would like
to have somebody who is an Ubuntu developer to take responsibility for
it, though.

The current package in Ubuntu is just an import from Debian, so it
does not have an owner as such.

If nobody steps up to do this in the near future (let's say a week),
I'll remove the package from Ubuntu. While this is a shame, it is
better to not ship some software than ship broken software which
causes spurious bug reports. Is this plan ok with you (the SixXS
people)?

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Will remove the following packages from feisty:

     aiccu | 20050131-1 | source, amd64, i386, ia64, powerpc, sparc

------------------- Reason -------------------
(tfheen) Removed at the request of upstream; broken.
----------------------------------------------

Going to remove the packages now.
Continue (y/N)? y
Deleting... done.