new port: dfu-util

[benoit.triquet@…]

Please find attached Portfile for dfu-util 0.7, no patches needed. port lint is clean, I do not know how to further check if I am missing dependencies. Upstream has a git repo but according to the Guide, my portfile uses the source tarball from upstream: please advise if the git repo should be preferred after all.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Thanks. Using a tarball is preferable to fetching from a repository.

The headers in the source files say:

* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.

So the license should be "GPL-2+" not "GPL-2".

You can check what a port links with using port contents and otool -L; I do it like this:

$ port -q contents | xargs otool -L | grep -v "not an object file"
/opt/local/bin/dfu-suffix:
	/opt/local/lib/libusb-1.0.0.dylib (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 2.0.0)
	/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 169.3.0)
/opt/local/bin/dfu-util:
	/opt/local/lib/libusb-1.0.0.dylib (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 2.0.0)
	/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 169.3.0)

It seems to only link with libusb so the dependencies are fine.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

r100565

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

The buildbots failed to build this (e.g. the Mountain Lion buildbot ​here, saying:

checking for pkg-config... no
checking for USB... no
configure: error: *** Required libusb-1.0 >= 1.0.0 not installed ***

This suggests a pkgconfig build dependency is needed to find libusb. Added in r100566; now it builds.

[benoit.triquet@…]

Replying to ryandesign@…:

Thanks for the rapid inclusion, tips and fixes (I should learn more about libtool and pkgconfig).

The headers in the source files say:

* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.

So the license should be "GPL-2+" not "GPL-2".

Good catch, I hadn't even looked. I based my portfile on the explicit statement "GPL v2" on the webpage.

I will side with you, I assume this is just a mistake from upstream and not a willful decision to make the entire package GPL v2 except some files GPL v2+. There are 4 header files that do not have their own license but they are headers of source files that are indeed GPL v2+ so this cannot be meaningful.

I am asking upstream for clarification, will keep you posted.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Replying to benoit.triquet@…:

Thanks for the rapid inclusion, tips and fixes (I should learn more about libtool and pkgconfig).

No worries; pkgconfig is easy to forget, since everybody already has it installed. One of the reasons why we have the buildbots is to catch problems like these so that we can quickly fix them before users notice.

Good catch, I hadn't even looked. I based my portfile on the explicit statement "GPL v2" on the webpage.

I will side with you, I assume this is just a mistake from upstream and not a willful decision to make the entire package GPL v2 except some files GPL v2+. There are 4 header files that do not have their own license but they are headers of source files that are indeed GPL v2+ so this cannot be meaningful.

I am asking upstream for clarification, will keep you posted.

There's also the manpage which says:

LICENCE
       dfu-util is covered by the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or later.

[benoit.triquet@…]

Replying to ryandesign@…:

There's also the manpage which says:

LICENCE
       dfu-util is covered by the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or later.

I checked on my debian install: they are still at 0.5 but also considered it to be GPL v2+ at the time, and since it had multiple authors, I don't think the sole current maintainer can take it back.