Re: RFS: cobertura
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Matthew Johnson <email@example.com> wrote:
Hi Matthew, thanks for reviewing this package.
Please see below my answers.
> - any reason you're not using dh --with ant or --with javahelper and are doing
> everything by hand?
Now I'm using javahelper. It simplified some tasks with packaging,
thanks for the
> - the API doc in cobertura-doc should still be located in /usr/share/doc/cobertura/api
Done. The package was renamed to libcobertura-java-doc and the API doc is now
located at /usr/share/doc/libcobertura-java/api.
> - Is cobertura really providing a library? If so, would it be better to split
> out a libcobertura-java package for things to depend on. If not, do you need
> the API and to have the jar in /usr/share/java?
Yes, it is providing a library. The package is already splitted.
> - is there any reason why you are depending on openjdk rather than
> default-jdk? If not, you should depend on default-jdk. You should also
> probably include the other virtual packages (java6-runtime etc)
> - ditto, you should build-dep on default-jdk
This was just laziness on my part. It is already fixed to depend on
the correct packages. cobertura source package now Build-Depend
on default-jdk-builddep and the binary packages Depend on
default-jre-headless | java2-runtime-headless | java2-runtime.
> - standards-version has just been changed to 3.8.4
> - there are still files in etc/dtds/ with the copyright notice:
> <!-- Portions (C) International Organization for Standardization 1986:^M
> Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with^M conforming SGML
> systems and applications as defined in^M ISO 8879, provided this notice is
> included in all copies.^M
> which it's not clear is DFSG-free (in particular it doesn't seem to provide
> permission to distribute modified versions on derivative works)
Done. Those files were removed from orig source since they are not needed
to build or use this package.
> - (biggest issue here): Apache 1.1 licenced code seems not to be linkable with
> GPL-2+ licenced code:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and
> you have both in cobertura. You should probably raise this with upstream and
> see what they say.
Upstream clarify this in her website
"The use of the Apache Software License in Cobertura is very straight forward.
Cobertura includes a set of ant tasks which can be used to call Cobertura. Ant
itself is licensed under the Apache Software License, Version 2.0. Because ant
tasks are loaded directly into the runtime of ant, and the GPL is incompatable
with all versions of the Apache Software License, ant tasks can not be licensed
under the GPL.
For this reason, the Cobertura ant tasks are licensed under the Apache Software
License, Version 1.1. And because these ant tasks are not GPL-compatable, but
the rest of Cobertura is GPL, when these ant tasks invoke Cobertura they must
do so by exec'ing a new JVM."
If this is not clear, what's the correct thing to do? Contact
> - cobertura-doc suggests cobertura-java, but the other package is just cobertura
Yes, fixed. It was a typo.
Thanks again for the review and the feedback.
I uploaded a new version of this package to mentors:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura/cobertura_1.9.3+dfsg-1.dsc
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Miguel Landaeta, miguel at miguel.cc
secure email with PGP 0x7D8967E9 available at http://keyserver.pgp.com/
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." -- Nietzsche