Re: RFS: equinox-themes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2010-10-10 10:52, Hadret wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "equinox-themes".
>
> * Package name : equinox-themes
> Version : 1.30.2-2
> Upstream Author : Matthieu James <matthieu.james@gmail.fr>
> * URL : http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=121881
> * License : GPL-2+
> Section : gnome
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> equinox-themes - themes for gtk2 equinox engine
>
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
>
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/equinox-themes
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/equinox-themes/equinox-themes_1.30.2-2.dsc
>
> I'm already the owner of #599689 ITP:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=599689
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
>
> Kind regards
Hi
Sorry for the very late reply on your email. I have done a quick review
of your package. Since I do not use GNOME nor have any experience with
GNOME related packages or desktop themes, this package is mostly outside
my domain.
Nevertheless I have a few comments about it.
debian/control: A dependency on ${shlibs:Depends} does not make sense
for Architecture: all packages. This is for architecture dependent
packages only and is calculated from binaries compiled (e.g.) from C or C++.
debian/copyright: Your RFS suggests it is GPL 2+, but your copyright
says GPL (unversioned) and points to the unversioned GPL in
common-licenses (which points to GPL 3).
I looked at the upstream files and all I could find was a few xml
files and gtkrc files suggesting an unversioned "GPL" as well. However,
the upstream site also gives an unversioned GPL and links to [1], which
might imply GPL 3.
Personally I would advise you to ask your upstream to clarify the
license[2]. If he/she/they truly mean the "unversioned GPL", he/she/they
can use "any version of GPL" or "GPL version 1 or any later" (both makes
his/her/their intend explicit). I know the license says:
" ... If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation."
But for all I know (as a reviewer or potential user) the xml files
containing the license may be using a different context (e.g. "no
version attribute/tag" means "version 2 or any later"), of which the
program(s) reading these xml files might be aware.
Finally, any reason for using DEP-5 revision 59? 135 appears to be the
newest revision.
~Niels
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
[2] Particularly a license file in the top-level directory or in each of
the sub directories saying "All the content in this/these theme(s) are
copyright $year, $author. You may use/modify/distribute it under the
terms of the $license" would be really nice.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=Zy4q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: