Upstream source includes not only the flattened plaintext data,
but also more rich RDF data.

Please ship the RDF data too.

Kind regards,

 - Jonas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=1oUf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2020-10-18 03:38:56)

[Since asked about it on irc...]

I would suggest to use one package for all formats, and store them in
subdirs same as in source - i.e. move current /usr/share/spdx-licenses/*
to /usr/share/spdx-licenses/text and besides text/ add (at least)
rdfturtle/


Kind regards,

 - Jonas

Hi,

the attached diff to the dbeian/ directory adds the RDF/Turtle,
RDF/XML, and JSON formatted files to the package.

The package is not ready to upload yet, because I need to align
d/copyright with the new upstream verison. Please note that in order
to keep the file list in d/install maintainable, I chose to change
from explicitly listing each file there to installing the full
directories. The intention of listing the single files was to not
install any license texts missing in d/copyright, which IMHO is wrong
because d/copyright is about the source package, rather than the
binary package. So I removed the general wildcard from d/copyright, so
that now we can rely on lintian reporting missing files:

 W: spdx-licenses source: file-without-copyright-information debian/copyright text/389-exception.txt
 W: spdx-licenses source: file-without-copyright-information debian/copyright text/AAL.txt
 W: spdx-licenses source: file-without-copyright-information debian/copyright text/ANTLR-PD-fallback.txt
 W: spdx-licenses source: file-without-copyright-information debian/copyright text/ANTLR-PD.txt
 […]

Before I get down to updating d/copyright (quite a few additions
upstream…), I ask the maintainer to approve of the changes to how the
package is built.

Hi Dominik,

Quoting Dominik George (2021-10-05 14:49:52)

It seems your work is based on same non-source, despite bug#975120.

Sorry, but I see little relevancy in how you track non-source files.

Sorry, but I consider the NMU as drafted useless since it does not
account for release-critical bug#975120.


Kind regards,

 - Jonas

Thanks for your kind words.

As can be seen by the fact that we are communicating in this bug report, my question for feedback is about this bug, not some other bugs. Looking at the Maintainer field of the package, it also seems this is **your** package. If it is a requirement to solve all issues with your package to get a single bug fixed, then sorry, I find that unacceptable.

If "useless" is everything you have to say about the work of a contributor, then please reconsider your involvement in a community of developers.

Are you able to provide feedback concerning the questions at hand, on top of judging the work I do because you ignored it for several years?

Thanks,
Nik

Hi Dominik,

Quoting Dominik George (2021-10-05 16:15:10)

Yes, I understand that you would prefer to work on fixing this bug,
disregarding other bugs in this package.

Due to the entanglements of this bug with another bug I however find it
unreasonable to work on this one in isolation.  Hence my conclusion that
your work in isolation is of no use a.k.a. useless.

I shall respect your wish to not care about other bugs, but that means I
cannot explain to you how things are entangled - because that is not
possible without bringing your attention to that other bug.

Duly noted.

For the record, your decribed requirement does not reflect my position
on the matter.

I have more to say to contributors in general, but frankly your attitude
does not positively excite me for continued dialogue with you in
particular.

For the record this conversation began in a Matrix chatroom like this:

I continue to welcome questions but please change the tone or I might
loose interest.

I am unable to parse the above as anything but a pile of insults and
wrong assumptions.

But let me try anyway...

Yes, I am not disabled.

Yes, I already provided feedback on the questions at hand - maybe not
the feedback you hoped for, but feedback nonetheless.

Yes, you asked me to judge your work so that is what I did - again maybe
not how you hoped for, but...

No, you are mistaken that I have ignored this package for several years.


 - Jonas

Hi Jonas,

Thanks for sharing conversations I did not consent to make public to a public forum. I will seek legal advice on that.

For the record:

* I asked on Matrix to get a quick "Go" or "Stop", no more, no less. You refused to give me a quick answer, which would have been helpful, instead of asking me to waste time on a far more elaborate means of communication for a quick question no one else cares about

* I did ask the same question by mail after you refused to give a simple answer. You chose not to respond to that either. A quick "Stop, you will need to fix the other bug first" would have been helpful, instead of waiting until I wasted hours of work on your package


Now, never mind, I will not waste more time on your package. I will just make a new package for my needs, and if anyone asks why we need two, I will point them to this conversation.


Thanks for being such a pedantic^Wvery helpful fellow contributor!

Quoting Dominik George (2021-10-05 17:53:48)

Sorry, I never had the impression that you meant for our conversation to
be kept secret - only that you found it a more convenient platform.

Debian has access to legal counceling pro-bono.  You might consider
asking our leader about that.

I am happy you see a use for our conversation being public.


 - Jonas

Aren't you the person signing all their mail with explicit consent? Considering that, I find it hard to believe that you don't know the concept of explicit consent to publication of written words.


I would welcome it very much if we could get back to technical discussions and, if asked a simple question via a Medium you officially promote on your website, you give a simple answer in the future. I don't think that that is too much to ask for in a setting where everyone donates their free time and not want to waste time writing full blown mails to everyone and there dog for a quick question no one will care about later.

While you are technically correct on this issue,  I consider it socially inadequate to not point me to the issue you knew of very well when you had the chance.

Maybe if we can agree that there are more helpful ways to interact right from the start, we could find a way forward in the other bug report....

Quoting Dominik George (2021-10-05 18:17:35)

True, my email footer contains "quote me freely".

But no, that does not imply that I consider any and all emails or chat
message without such explicit statement should me considered as having
the opposite implicit intent.

You did not find my answer on that medium simple?

Then let me try again - in this public medium where I am more willing to
doing more elaborate writing, because there is a higher chance that my
writing efforts reach an audience finding it valuable:

I have a private life, and I have a professional life, and I have a life
with Debian.  My life with Debian overlaps to some extend both my
private and my professional lives, but to a very large extend my Debian
life is done in public - and I prefer to keep it that way.

So when someone contacts me at mediums/platforms tied to my professional
work or my private person, I routinely request that the conversation
please be moved to a public medium/platform.

I don't do that blindly - there are few types of conversations relevant
to keep discrete - either for a shorter period of time or maybe forever
- maybe because they are personally damaging or organisationally
damaging or for other reasons.

For your simple question of "How do I proceed?" I answered "Please use
email and our public bugtracker, not discrete methods like this".

Email is pretty much the default medium in Debian - used for bugtracking
and discussion and voting.

Matrix is very much not default nor officially existing in Debian.

Therefore, if email is painful for you, then... Whatever.

I didn't point you to our bugtracker?

You couldn't be bothered to read the 2 (two) bugs against the package
you wanted to work on, but you complain that I didn't do that work on
your behalf?

I perfectly agree.


 - Jonas

Dear submitter,

as the package spdx-licenses has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/1079848

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using https://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Thorsten Alteholz (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)