Devuan bug report logs - #339
pump: different licenses mentioned

Full log

🔗 View this message in rfc822 format

MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509)
X-Loop: owner@bugs.devuan.org
From: "Devuan bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.devuan.org>
To: Mark Hindley <mark@hindley.org.uk>
Subject: bug#339: marked as done (pump: different licenses mentioned)
Message-ID: <handler.339.D339.158282280127613.ackdone@bugs.devuan.org>
References: <20200227165614.GA24071@hindley.org.uk>
 <156236437909.8634.13482421452488798159.reportbug@morple.localnet>
X-Devuan-PR-Message: closed 339
X-Devuan-PR-Package: pump
Reply-To: 339@bugs.devuan.org
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:03:02 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1582822982-27624-0"

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:56:14 +0000
with message-id <20200227165614.GA24071@hindley.org.uk>
and subject line Re: pump: different licenses mentioned
has caused the Devuan bug report #339,
regarding pump: different licenses mentioned
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.devuan.org
immediately.)


-- 
339: https://bugs.devuan.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=339
Devuan Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.devuan.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: "M. Dietrich" <mdt@emdete.de>

To: Devuan Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.devuan.org>

Subject: pump: different licenses mentioned

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 00:06:19 +0200

Package: pump
Version: 0.8.24-7.1
Severity: minor

The file COPYING is a GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE while the
file pump.spec tells "License: MIT". The headers in the source
sound like MIT too. What is the correct license for pump?

I havent found any repo where the source is maintained (seems
to have been a CVS versioning). Where was the sourcecode
downloaded from and where are all the patches maintained?

-- System Information:
Distributor ID:	Devuan
Description:	Devuan GNU/Linux beowulf/ceres
Release:	10
Codename:	n/a
Architecture: x86_64

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-5-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)

Versions of packages pump depends on:
ii  libc6     2.28-10
ii  libpopt0  1.16-12
ii  netbase   5.6

pump recommends no packages.

Versions of packages pump suggests:
pn  resolvconf  <none>

-- no debconf information

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Mark Hindley <mark@hindley.org.uk>

To: 339-close@bugs.devuan.org

Subject: Re: pump: different licenses mentioned

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:56:14 +0000

On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 00:06:19 +0200 "M. Dietrich" <mdt@emdete.de> wrote:
> Package: pump
> Version: 0.8.24-7.1
> Severity: minor
> 
> The file COPYING is a GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE while the
> file pump.spec tells "License: MIT". The headers in the source
> sound like MIT too. What is the correct license for pump?
> 
> I havent found any repo where the source is maintained (seems
> to have been a CVS versioning). Where was the sourcecode
> downloaded from and where are all the patches maintained?

pump has been removed from Debian and is not in any release since Stretch[1]

So, closing.

Mark

[1]  https://tracker.debian.org/news/1056763/removed-0824-71-from-unstable/

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.