On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Olе Streicher
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Tim Jenness <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Olе Streicher
>>> I cannot include obfuscated code in a "main" debian package (and this is
>>> what I want). I even cannot include AST in "non-free" since I will get
>>> immediate complaints about its license.
>
>> And I keep saying that I'm actively working on it. We've actively
>> ported 36 of the 53 routines used by AST to C via PAL+SOFA. The next
>> release of AST will not include the SLA code. The SOFA licence says
>> that the sofa code can be redistributed so the AST tar ball will have
>> a sofa subdir with the subset of sofa needed by AST.
>
> I have no problem to update AST to use PAL+SOFA (although it takes me to
> build two more packages) once such a version is released. Since I will
> anyway take some time to get astlib packaged (it is quite huge, and I
> have to fiddle out which libraries are useful and how I should package
> them) we will see whether the version will then use PAL or SLA.
I think the Fedora guys had similar issues with the plot support
libraries (the PGPLOT plugin) and the error support libraries. Which
are used depends on the options to ast_link.
> I will
> just take the released version. I still have to check the SOFA license
> with Debian-legal.
>
> BTW, would it be possible to provide PAL packages as you do with AST?
> This would make packaging and updating much easier.
>
Yes.
> In the moment, it is not, but my SLA/Fortran packaging is almost
> complete; so why not just publish it? It may be useful also for others
> who still didn't make the switch.
I don't mind the SLA packaging existing. It's AST using SLA for the
first time in a long time that is what is worrying me.
--
Tim Jenness
|