[Bug 72518] Re: Include aiccu in multiverse

Sat Jan 13 03:21:34 GMT 2007

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.

Where else do people file reports then? Clearly if the problems are not
filed they are not cared for. The problem is caused by Ubuntu not by
another place. This is a bug in the Ubuntu package of aiccu, as such
hereby I file the bug. Be happy that I take the time for it, but then
again that is out of self interest to avoid complaining users and mayhem
because you are providing a broken version.

> It would be easier to be
> worked out by

>  (a)emailing myself since I created the debdiff and working out

This bug report is reaching you not? So why should we mail you? The
'debdiff' as you call it is provided in this bug report and it states
that it is up for consideration. With these messages I am notifying you
that the proposed patch is broken.

Also how is it to be known that we should mail you?
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aiccu/ clearly reads:

8<-------------------------------------
Latest release:  20050131-1
Uploaded By: Ubuntu Archive Auto-Sync
Maintainer: Anand Kumria

Bug contacts
For this package:
    * Kai Kasurinen
----------------------------------->8

It does not list your name. Also I am filing this bug report against
Ubuntu, not against you. I have nothing against you. I have something
against the Ubuntu package being broken and broken patches to be added.

> (b)emailing one of the many developement lists or MOTU list for a
> solution, or

"One of many development list" which one exactly? And why not the bug
report?

Why does this bug report engine exist if one is not supposed to use it?

> (c) don't rant, but instead copy and paste the last half of
> your post here as "hey this is how it should be."

That text is in the bug report, you can read it there, that is how it
should be.

It clearly states where to skip to if you are not happy with reading a
perfectly valid complaint about how Ubuntu is breaking a working program
and causing both license and copyright infringements. Note that I only
mentioned them there, I am not even going to complain about them, but I
do request that they get fixed ASAP!

I am really disappointed that the "Freedom" of Open Source seems to only
apply to a select few who didn't work on the code at all. AICCU has an
Open Source license so that it can be used by it's users, not to have
all kinds of political nonsense battles over it. Blergh.

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

Why should an upstream need to fix bugs which are not present in the
original distribution!? Especially when the distro is making it broken,
which does result in the upstream to get the complaints?

I couldn't care less if Ubuntu had broken packages; but this is causing
us to get complaints about it.

Ubuntu is breaking it by doing weird diff's with broken code and
changing licenses and copyrights, thus Ubuntu has to fix this, it is
perfectly fine in the upstream tarball and in the Debian packages
provided at the AICCU site.

I already offered a VERY simple solution: use the original tarball.

See the above URL which even contains MD5's so that you can compare it
easily with the wrong version that you are patching together and is
resulting in a broken version.

If this very simple request of using the ORIGINAL tarball as supplied
at, I'll just for arguments sake name it again:
http://www.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/unix/aiccu_20070107.tar.gz

is not possible, then WHO in Ubuntu or WHERE should I then complain
to that this is looked at so that this problem is resolved!?

Greets,
 Jeroen

 (who is really getting sick of political nonsense and bureaucracy
  in this thing called Open Source)

-- 
Include aiccu in multiverse
https://launchpad.net/bugs/72518