Hello Stefan, answers inline. BR On 10/05/2021 15:54, Stefan Brüns wrote:

On Montag, 10. Mai 2021 14:19:52 CEST you wrote:

...

Hello maintainers of graphics/siril,

I hope you're all doing well!

I'm writing for a follow-up on an email I sent a while ago on the buildservice ML[1]

As an astrophotographer & openSUSE user myself, I worked quite a bit to package all missing software/drivers I could think of. Initially, they were located into my home repository, but since a couple of days we now have a dedicated devel project [2] Probably I should have spoken up earlier, but this repository/project raises a lot of red flags for me:

Many of the "new" packages, i.e. packages not copied/linked from existing packages have never seen any proper review.

You specify totally invalid/wrong license information for several packages. Just 2 examples:

1. https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/Application:Astrophotography/ libricohcamerasdk/libricohcamerasdk.spec?expand=1 - original source at https://github.com/indilib/indi-3rdparty/tree/master/libricohcamerasdk/lib

According to you, this is MIT, although it is a proprietary, binary package only distributed as prebuilt library.

2. https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/Application:Astrophotography/ SkyChart-data/SkyChart.spec?expand=1

According to you GPL, but that only applies to the Software, not the data packages.

There are several more data packages, which have problematic licenses (or fail to specify a license at all, because they can't) for the OBS.

You're right, there are some mistakes in the License field. When I packaged all indi drivers I overlooked it for some packages. What upstream specifies is LGPL-2.1-or-later, so I've obviously gotta fix that and all other license issues I'll find. About SkyChart-data, something obvioulsy went wrong when I executed copypac, because that is the spec file for SkyChart. Gotta fix that too.

You already tried to push some of these packages to the graphics project, you were told why these are not acceptable. For me this looks like an attempt to sidestep the issues.

AFAICS from the history it was 1 package, ASTAP, that later went into Science. I'm not a legal expert, but if a package has some kind of strict license (e.g. scientific data, like db of galaxies), we can use SUSE-NonFree, right? So why do you say it's not acceptable? Again, I'm far from a legal-ninja, so I might be completely wrong here.

...

My plan, once everything is set and in order, is to share the news also with the astro community. This would be nice for openSUSE, considering that we also build packages for aarch64

The small issue I'd like to solve with this move, is the "scattered around" state of the astro software/drivers. Therefore, I'd like to move under a single project all things astrophotography related, making the end user's life easier. I actually see hardly any benefit, by adding another project things get

even

more scattered, only now it is scattered in a way which suits your personal needs well.

Regards,

Stefan

My personal needs were satisfied with the home repo I created and maintained for this purpose. What I'm trying to do here is expanding openSUSE software base in order to make our distro more attractive to other fellow astronomers (who might not be Linux expert) right out of the box, with less fiddling as possible. The benefit of having a single devel project for such purpose is that if some packages won't get into Factory/Factory-NonFree, then the final user will only have 1 repo to deal with, and not lots of them. Adding a single dedicated repo is, IMHO, better than adding, for example, the entire "graphics" or "science" repo.