I believe mpage was wrongly removed by license issues.
I was checking BTS tagged as newcomer and found a mpage removal requested
by Eriberto to an upstream package. So I tracked back to this bug, where
the
license issue is correctly stated.
I considered rewrite the header in order have the package back on sid when
I deep looked at the source and... it isn't used anywhere. It recommends
to replace encondings.h, covered by GPL, by encondings.h.CP850 on OS/2
platform only, which contains such restrictive license.
If removed from source code, it compiles flawlessly.
helio@elxaf7qtt32:mpage-2.5.7$ rm -f encoding.h.PC850 Encodings/CP850.PC
helio@elxaf7qtt32:mpage-2.5.7$ make
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o mpage.o mpage.c
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o glob.o glob.c
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o text.o text.c
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o post.o post.c
post.c: In function ‘ps_copyprolog’:
post.c:414:17: warning: ignoring return value of ‘fgets’, declared with
attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
fgets(currline, LINESIZE-1, fd);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o file.o file.c
file.c: In function ‘looks_utf8’:
file.c:599:2: warning: ignoring return value of ‘fread’, declared with
attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
fread (buf, sizeof (char), nbytes, fp);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o page.o page.c
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o args.o args.c
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o util.o util.c
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -o mpage mpage.o glob.o text.o post
.o file.o page.o args.o util.o
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -c -o sample.o sample.c
gcc -O2 -s -DPAGE_DEF=\"A4\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/share/mpage\"
-DDEFAULT_ENCODING=1 -DDEFAULT_DUPLEX=0 -DDEFAULTSMARGIN=18
-DSPOOLER=BSD_SPOOLER -Wall -o msample sample.o page.o glob.o a
rgs.o
sed 's:PREFIX:/usr/local:' < mpage.1.in > mpage.1
Done!
So is it possible to revert the package removal or at the least move it to
contrib instead?
Vänliga hälsningar/Best Regards,
Helio Loureiro
http://helio.loureiro.eng.br
https://se.linkedin.com/in/helioloureiro
http://twitter.com/helioloureiro
Note: if you failed to reach me, try my alternative mail "
helio.loureiro@gmail.com".
I'm implementing DKIM on my mail server, so some disturbance is expected.
Hi, Please advise regarding this revert request. Vänliga hälsningar/Best Regards, Helio Loureiro http://helio.loureiro.eng.br https://se.linkedin.com/in/helioloureiro http://twitter.com/helioloureiro Note: if you failed to reach me, try my alternative mail " helio.loureiro@gmail.com". I'm implementing DKIM on my mail server, so some disturbance is expected. 2018-06-11 14:57 GMT+02:00 Helio Loureiro <helio@loureiro.eng.br>:
Sending again to the new bug. Dear Helio, As the package isn't in Debian anymore, the bug is closed. However, any Debian maintainer (and via sponsoring anybody) can reintroduce the package if it is considered useful. So the answers are: no and yes. If you want to reintroduce the package to Debian, I suggest you contact Debian mentors¹². I don't have any personal interest in mpage. Paul ¹ http://mentors.debian.net/ ² IRC #debian-mentors on oftc
Hi, I started on Debian at Ham release. At that time mpage was part of Debian. So I've a profound relationship with mpage as great tool along all these years. But if my statement is correct, that package after 20 years at Debian was wrongly removed due a license which doesn't apply to delivered binaries, do you really believe the best approach is to ask a volunteer out of Debian developers/maintainers to join on Debian mentors to fix it? Wouldn't be easier for you and Eriberto to just revert the removal? I guess that any DSC from theses 20 years of Debian would work just fine. Vänliga hälsningar/Best Regards, Helio Loureiro http://helio.loureiro.eng.br https://se.linkedin.com/in/helioloureiro http://twitter.com/helioloureiro Note: if you failed to reach me, try my alternative mail " helio.loureiro@gmail.com". I'm implementing DKIM on my mail server, so some disturbance is expected.
Hi, Just to confirm that after Buster release, this bug stills open and the error persists. Best Regards, Helio Loureiro http://helio.loureiro.eng.br http://br.linkedin.com/in/helioloureiro http://twitter.com/helioloureiro
Hi, Today is the bug anniversary day. Is there any update on it? Best Regards, Helio Loureiro http://helio.loureiro.eng.br http://br.linkedin.com/in/helioloureiro http://twitter.com/helioloureiro On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 18:52, Helio Loureiro <helio.loureiro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Sorry that I missed the bug anniversary date. But hopefully I'm not that late compared to the time this bug is open. More than 5 years now. Is there any progress here? Best Regards, Helio Loureiro http://helio.loureiro.eng.br http://br.linkedin.com/in/helioloureiro http://twitter.com/helioloureiro https://github.com/helioloureiro
The licensing was not the only reason that removal was requested. Yes - that is the established process for all packages. There is no method for doing this which does not require a volunteer to do the upload and, clearly, nobody is sufficiently interested to spend any time on that. The former maintainer(s) of this package had already orphaned it before removal. Many packages in the QA group are fixed by volunteers outside Debian using Debian mentors - the process works well. Those who care about the package are the ones motivated to do work on the package. fix any lintian warnings etc. and there will need to be a new review of the licensing through the FTP process. Besides, the removal was not just for licensing: Bug 876197 Someone needs to be sufficiently interested in the package to do this work. If that is not you, it looks like there is nobody else willing to volunteer, so the situation will not change. It seems obvious that nobody else considers the package useful. Just pinging the bug report will not suddenly produce a volunteer to do the work. Personally, I do not see merit in having mpage in Debian. I am comfortable with the removal of a package with such a small niche.
Hi Neil, Thanks for the prompt reply. I get impressed when a 5 years old bug gets a fast response. And stills not solved. If you open the bug report #876197 and read it carefully and then read this bug report more carefully yet, you will notice that the referred header file isn't part of the final binary. And it surprises me to hear that a simple binary, based on 2 header files, 11 C files and a single Makefile, can be so complex that maintenance as a debian package becomes unbearable. If you also read carefully the other mails in this bug, you will notice the package was indeed removed by a misleading and wrong assumption from the developer (or would better say packager since not even looking at the source code was done?). Which makes it really strange. You as debian developers (or maybe just packagers?) are expected to have a high quality knowledge about packages, mainly to take a final decision to completely remove them. Now you come back to me saying you have the power to remove the package based on a mistaken decision but you don't have the will to fix it. Don't you think it is, at the least, odd? BTW now on do we need to keep track of all DDs thoughts and keep acting upon their mindset about what they consider not useful anymore? Before you ask me why not maintain the package myself, I already created my own deb package and have it working fine here. My intention was to stop all the bad decisions that came after this wrongly removal, which affected several packages that relied on mpage. The idea was just to fix one mistake made by a DD instead of forcing several other DDs to change their packages and remove a supported software. After 5 years I'm not so sure if my idea to help Debian succeed as intended. And that was just one quick check I made. I'm afraid to find more of this if I keep looking. Best Regards, Helio Loureiro http://helio.loureiro.eng.br http://br.linkedin.com/in/helioloureiro http://twitter.com/helioloureiro https://github.com/helioloureiro
Hi, I decided to take a look at other systems and distros to have an idea where mpage is for them as well. On FreeBSD: helio@freebsd /u/ports [1]> make search key=mpage [...] Port: mpage-2.5.7 Path: /usr/ports/print/mpage Info: Print multiple pages per sheet of paper Maint: ports@FreeBSD.org B-deps: R-deps: WWW: [...] On Fedora: helio@fedora ~> dnf search mpage [...] ======================================================================================== Name Exactly Matched: mpage ========================================================================================= mpage.x86_64 : A tool for printing multiple pages of text on each printed page [...] On Arch: helio@archlinux ~> pacaur -Ss mpage [...] aur/mpage 2.5.7-3 (1, 0.0) Print several pages on a single sheet of paper. [...] I could continue with opensuse and others, non-debian based, but I guess I already made the point. Best Regards, Helio Loureiro http://helio.loureiro.eng.br http://br.linkedin.com/in/helioloureiro http://twitter.com/helioloureiro https://github.com/helioloureiro