I've read in the buster-announcement something about the "unblock request deadline".
Does this mean, we would have a chance to get the new version to the stable release if we request an unblock?
We can do this without the (Build-)Depends of tcpdf if this is a problem. Skipping the unittest which require it should not be hard. Even without pdf-export at all, phpmyadmin is useful.
@fsateler: can you confirm or negate this? I thought getting packages into stable is only possible in exceptional cases after full-freeze
Does this mean, we would have a chance to get the new version to the stable release if we request an unblock?
Unfortunately no. The mentioned unblocks are for targeted (ie, as small in scope as possible) bugfixes for packages already in buster.
I thought getting packages into stable is only possible in exceptional cases after full-freeze
The release team makes a big difference between updates to packages already in testing vs including new packages. For updates, it is easier to keep small and focused. That's obviously not possible for (a set of) new packages, so the deadline for introducing new packages is way earlier than the deadline for updates to existing packages.
Yes, thanks for clearing that up. That is how I understood it so far. I can remember the problems remmina had on stretch, the package is still only available in stretch-backports but not in stretch.
Thanks! I have uploaded the new version. Hopefully it will get accepted this time.
debian/copyright includes GPL2+ for *. Does he mean to have a different section for locale/*?
I think he means that some file say:
This file is distributed under the same license as the phpMyAdmin package
I think a note indicating that phpMyAdmin is itself GPL-2 might be sufficient. I think it would be best to address upstream though, to make it clear without external references.
@fsateler Hi, I'm the project coordinator for phpMyAdmin. I'm happy about the effort to package phpMyAdmin here and @williamdes-guest suggested I comment here to help with the license issue. Note that I'm not a licensing expert.
Currently, phpMyAdmin is indeed GPL-2, not GPL-2+. From memory, I believe this is because of the amount of legacy GPL-2 code in phpMyAdmin and the hurdles of re-licensing. Does this affect how it will be included in Debian, or is it just to clarify for the copyright file?
The licensing is a bit inconsistent for some of the sub-packages within phpMyAdmin (Shapefile, sql-parser, and more), but everything should be under a GPL-2 or GPL-2+ license as documented in the LICENSE (or LICENSE.txt) file of each repository — if there isn't one or if it's not clear, that's something we should address on our end. We're currently working on making this all a bit more clear, although we're definitely not there yet.
Currently, phpMyAdmin is indeed GPL-2, not GPL-2+. From memory, I believe this is because of the amount of legacy GPL-2 code in phpMyAdmin and the hurdles of re-licensing. Does this affect how it will be included in Debian, or is it just to clarify for the copyright file?
No, there is no problem with phpMyAdmin itself.
The licensing is a bit inconsistent for some of the sub-packages within phpMyAdmin (Shapefile, sql-parser, and more), but everything should be under a GPL-2 or GPL-2+ license as documented in the LICENSE (or LICENSE.txt) file of each repository — if there isn't one or if it's not clear, that's something we should address on our end. We're currently working on making this all a bit more clear, although we're definitely not there yet.
Right, so this is the problem. In particular, sql-parser declares itself as GPL-2+, but some files (in particular translations) say "the same licence as phpMyAdmin". My suspicion is that is just boilerplate copied over, and just changing that comment to read GPL-2+ would fix our problem. But that would only fix it if indeed the files should be GPL-2+ and not GPL-2.
Okay, thanks for this. My suspicions match yours, but I'm going to refer the question to Software Freedom Conservancy; since we're one of their member projects they'll probably be able to provide a more legally-authoritative answer than I could. I or William will try to keep you posted. Cheers!
I can do tests on all the builds for debian backports and create a buster-backport-branch on all necessary packages.
I'll also create branches for the ppa and upload new versions there. I'm sure this will drift away anyway from master once we are focussing on 5.0.
How do you want to have the first line in the changelog? 'unreleased' or shall I create tags? I don't think there is anything to do when packaging for backports (at least for the dependencies).
How about this: I'll create tags if there ist nothing else then the different changelog and ci-config necessary for the branch and make UNRELEASED without a tag otherwise.
Hi William, others
I hope you know that phpmyadmin won't build unless its depedencies are in buster or buster-backports. This means, that you should start by pushing its dependencies to -backports if not in buster.
If you need review and/or sponsorship, just mention me there on some issue or commit.
Assign this back to me when the dependencies are pushed :)
(unassigning myself because I'd like to keep my todo clear; please assign it back to me if I have something to do?) :)