[PATCH 06/17] man-db: update 2.10.2 -> 2.11.1


Alexander Kanavin
 

License-Update: upstream has clarified that it is gpl3
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/man-db/-/commit/695a3560fdf91f829f21f00a502244b0cf28e29d

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@...>
---
.../man-db/{man-db_2.10.2.bb => man-db_2.11.1.bb} | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
rename meta/recipes-extended/man-db/{man-db_2.10.2.bb => man-db_2.11.1.bb} (89%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.10.2.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.11.1.bb
similarity index 89%
rename from meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.10.2.bb
rename to meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.11.1.bb
index a41e2dd4d8..641ee6e398 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.10.2.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.11.1.bb
@@ -1,15 +1,15 @@
SUMMARY = "An implementation of the standard Unix documentation system accessed using the man command"
HOMEPAGE = "http://man-db.nongnu.org/"
DESCRIPTION = "man-db is an implementation of the standard Unix documentation system accessed using the man command. It uses a Berkeley DB database in place of the traditional flat-text whatis databases."
-LICENSE = "LGPL-2.1-only & GPL-2.0-only"
-LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=4fbd65380cdd255951079008b364516c \
- file://COPYING;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263"
+LICENSE = "GPL-3.0-only"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1ebbd3e34237af26da5dc08a4e440464 \
+ "

SRC_URI = "${SAVANNAH_NONGNU_MIRROR}/man-db/man-db-${PV}.tar.xz \
file://99_mandb \
file://0001-man-Move-local-variable-declaration-to-function-scop.patch \
file://man_db.conf-avoid-multilib-install-file-conflict.patch"
-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "ee97954d492a13731903c9d0727b9b01e5089edbd695f0cdb58d405a5af5514d"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "2eabaa5251349847de9c9e43c634d986cbcc6f87642d1d9cb8608ec18487b6cc"

DEPENDS = "libpipeline gdbm groff-native base-passwd"
RDEPENDS:${PN} += "base-passwd"
--
2.30.2


Richard Purdie
 

On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 14:31 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
License-Update: upstream has clarified that it is gpl3
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/man-db/-/commit/695a3560fdf91f829f21f00a502244b0cf28e29d

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@...>
---
.../man-db/{man-db_2.10.2.bb => man-db_2.11.1.bb} | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
rename meta/recipes-extended/man-db/{man-db_2.10.2.bb => man-db_2.11.1.bb} (89%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.10.2.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.11.1.bb
similarity index 89%
rename from meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.10.2.bb
rename to meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.11.1.bb
index a41e2dd4d8..641ee6e398 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.10.2.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-extended/man-db/man-db_2.11.1.bb
@@ -1,15 +1,15 @@
SUMMARY = "An implementation of the standard Unix documentation system accessed using the man command"
HOMEPAGE = "http://man-db.nongnu.org/"
DESCRIPTION = "man-db is an implementation of the standard Unix documentation system accessed using the man command. It uses a Berkeley DB database in place of the traditional flat-text whatis databases."
-LICENSE = "LGPL-2.1-only & GPL-2.0-only"
-LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=4fbd65380cdd255951079008b364516c \
- file://COPYING;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263"
+LICENSE = "GPL-3.0-only"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1ebbd3e34237af26da5dc08a4e440464 \
From a quick look at the changes, I'm not sure this is correct. At
least some pieces of the codebase are still under GPL-2.0* so at the
very least that should still be here even if the output result is 3.0.
It may be some of our output packages are also still under the 2.0
licenses.

Cheers,

Richard


Alexander Kanavin
 

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 13:31, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:
From a quick look at the changes, I'm not sure this is correct. At
least some pieces of the codebase are still under GPL-2.0* so at the
very least that should still be here even if the output result is 3.0.
It may be some of our output packages are also still under the 2.0
licenses.
README has this to say:
In addition, man-db incorporates Gnulib, copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation and others. Note that much of Gnulib is distributed under the GNU
General Public License version 3 or later. This means that, although
man-db's own source code is licensed under GPL v2 or later, the work as a
whole falls under the terms of the GPL v3 or later. Unless you take special
pains to remove the GPL v3 portions, you must therefore follow the terms and
conditions of the GPL v3 or later when distributing man-db.

I took a look at the log.do_compile. Gnulib is statically linked into
libman.so, then every executable binary is dynamically linked with
that. So there does not seem to be any reasonable independent target
piece that is under gplv2.

We can list the license as "gpl2+ & gpl3" with extra clarifications I guess.

Alex


Richard Purdie
 

On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 21:53 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 13:31, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:
From a quick look at the changes, I'm not sure this is correct. At
least some pieces of the codebase are still under GPL-2.0* so at the
very least that should still be here even if the output result is 3.0.
It may be some of our output packages are also still under the 2.0
licenses.
README has this to say:
In addition, man-db incorporates Gnulib, copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation and others. Note that much of Gnulib is distributed under the GNU
General Public License version 3 or later. This means that, although
man-db's own source code is licensed under GPL v2 or later, the work as a
whole falls under the terms of the GPL v3 or later. Unless you take special
pains to remove the GPL v3 portions, you must therefore follow the terms and
conditions of the GPL v3 or later when distributing man-db.

I took a look at the log.do_compile. Gnulib is statically linked into
libman.so, then every executable binary is dynamically linked with
that. So there does not seem to be any reasonable independent target
piece that is under gplv2.

We can list the license as "gpl2+ & gpl3" with extra clarifications I guess.
Yes. We don't interpret the overall license, we list the licenses
present and then it is for others to decide the license they use it
under (even if it is fairly clear for this combination).

If it is all under that license that is fair enough, I just wondered
about any sub components.

Cheers,

Richard