Package name : fossology
  Version : 3.4.0
  Upstream Author : Michael Jaeger <michael.c.jaeger@siemens.com>
  URL : https://www.fossology.org/
  License : GPL-2.0-only, LGPL-2.1-only
  Programming Lang: C, C++, PHP
  Description : FOSSology is an open source license compliance software
system and toolkit.

 FOSSology is an open source license compliance software system and
toolkit. As a toolkit you can run license, copyright and export control
scans from the command line. As a system, a database and web ui are
provided to give you a compliance workflow. License, copyright and export
scanners are tools used in the workflow.

 - Why is this package useful/relevant?
   - FOSSology is a famous tool used for open source license compliance.
     We have a large database of users which can be benifited by
     publishing this as a Debian package.
 - Do you use it?
   - You can check https://www.fossology.org/ to get a list of compaines
     and organizations using FOSSology.
 - How do you plan to maintain it?
   - FOSSology is currently maintained at
https://github.com/fossology/fossology. I have created a mirror for
     the same at https://salsa.debian.org/fossology-team/fossology.
 - Are you looking for co-maintainers or a sponsor?
   - We are looking for a sponsor to help us publish FOSSology as a
     Debian package.

[Adding 924659@bugs.debian.org to CC]

Gaurav Mishra wrote:

For debian-devel, this got filed as:

https://bugs.debian.org/924659

Guarav, just a friendly note to say that you CC'd debian-devel explicitly
when filing this bug instead of using the X-Debbugs-CC mechanism.

See:

https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

… specifically the "Sending copies of bug reports to other addresses"
section for the rationale here.


Best wishes,

https://packages.qa.debian.org/f/fossology.html

Cheers,
        Moritz

Hi!

JFYI:

  ,---
  $ deb-why-removed fossology
  Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:58:31 +0000
  Ftpmaster: Luca Falavigna
  Suite: unstable
  Sources:
   fossology_1.2.0-3.1
  Binaries:
   fossology_1.2.0-3.1 [all]
   fossology-agents_1.2.0-3.1 [amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc]
   fossology-agents-single_1.2.0-3.1 [amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc]
   fossology-common_1.2.0-3.1 [amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc]
   fossology-db_1.2.0-3.1 [all]
   fossology-dev_1.2.0-3.1 [amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc]
   fossology-scheduler_1.2.0-3.1 [amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc]
   fossology-scheduler-single_1.2.0-3.1 [amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc]
   fossology-web_1.2.0-3.1 [all]
   fossology-web-single_1.2.0-3.1 [all]
  Reason: RoQA; unmaintained, RC buggy
  Bug: 656591
  Also-Bugs: 591107 592025 595593 627771 639468 658953 674381
  `---

Thanks,
Guillem

Hello,

Thank you Chris, I will keep that in mind.

Thanks Moritz to inform that. The FOSSology version last maintained on
Debian was 1.2.0 which was released in 2012. The current version is 3.4.0.

Thanks Guillem. I went through the bugs reported and most of them are
solved now. And FOSSology was removed due to being obsolete in bug 656591.
But we are maintaining FOSSology from 2014 so it active from at least 5
years again and I would like to adopt FOSSology.

Since I am not a Debian developer, I need your help to package and publish
FOSSology as a Debian package.

You help will be much appreciated.

Thanks and regards,
Gaurav Mishra

...

In 2016 Kate Stewart from the Linux Foundation was working on
packaging FOSSology, is this a continuation of that effort or a
parallel effort?

https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers
https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto

PS: please see also our guide for reintroducing packages:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.html#reintroducing-pkgs

Hi,

This is the continuation of the effort.

Please read through the guides:


Thank you for the pointers. I will follow it and create a RFS following the
same.

Thanks and regards,
Gaurav Mishra

Hi,

 Just curious, is there any public repository for the packaging?
 If not, I'll create it on salsa.debian.org.

Hello Hideki,

Thanks for the support. I have created public repository just for the
purpose of Debian packaging on salsa.debian.org.

Here is the link: https://salsa.debian.org/fossology-team/fossology

Thanks and regards,
Gaurav Mishra

Hi,

 Thanks, I'll ask to join to it, and send MergeRequest :)

 Some quick questions

 - It allows to depend on php5, is it intended one?
 - Upstream has debian directory but it may cause some trouble.
   Debian packaging should be updated in salsa (every Debian developers
   has a right to commit), but it may conflict to upstream.
   I suggest upstream to remove debian directory on master branch,
   and suggest you to create branch like debian/sid and do packaging
   stuff on it.
 - And...why not update debian/copyright! :)

Hi,

I'm working on packaging the PHP dependencies for FOSSology and would like
to provide an update on the progress.

**Dependency Packages Progress:**

1. **php-firebase-php-jwt** (ITP: #1109343)
   - Status: Package created and ready for review
   - Version: 6.4.0
   - Notes: PHP library for JSON Web Token (JWT) authentication

2. **php-container-interop** (ITP: #1109356)
   - Status: Package created and ready for review
   - Version: 1.2.0
   - Notes: Basic PHP container interface package

3. **php-slim-symfony-di-container** (ITP: #1109357)
   - Status: Package created and ready for review
   - Version: 1.0.3
   - Notes: Symfony DI container adapter for Slim framework

4. **phpoffice-common** (ITP: #1109359)
   - Status: Package created and ready for review
   - Version: 1.0.5
   - Notes: Common library for PHPOffice projects

5. **phpoffice-phpword** (ITP: #1109360)
   - Status: Package created and ready for review
   - Version: 1.1.0
   - Notes: PHP library for reading and writing Word documents

**Current Status:**
- All dependency packages have been created with proper Debian packaging
files
- Packages are ready for RFS (Request For Sponsorship)
- Working within the main FOSSology repository structure

**Next Steps:**
- Prepare RFS (Request For Sponsorship) for each dependency package
- Begin work on the main FOSSology package once dependencies are in Debian

**Questions:**
- Should I proceed with RFS for these dependency packages?
- Are there any specific concerns about the packaging approach?
- Should I create separate repositories for each dependency package, or is
working within the main FOSSology repository acceptable?

Thanks,
Ahmed