Re: Request for Munipack package review

[Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org>]

Dear Filip,

Filip Hroch <hroch@physics.muni.cz> writes:
> I had prepared packaging of Munipack
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=824746
>
> which is more complex package than the previous 
> ones.
>
> Could I request for review of the code?

I went through the code, and it basically looks fine. I could also build
the package without errors. It has, however, still some problems with
debian/copyright (which all are IMO easily solvable):

* minpack is *not* public domain, but a BSD style license. 

* lib/fmin.f95 is also not public-domain (which is different from
  "freely available"). The license shown in debian/copyright does
  f.e. not allow for modification.
  However, the header of lib/fmin.f95 shows that it is GPLv3, so I would
  already coveres by the GPLv3 paragraph(s) (just add the copyright lines).

* The two first paragraphs (GPLv3) can be merged into one

* The license of wxMathPlot should be "GPLv2 or wxWindows", since it is an
  alternative.

* Please indent all license texts by only one space; this makes them
  better readable.

One suggestion for debian/control: If there is a "standard way" to use
munipack (either gui or command line), I would recommend to call the
according package "munipack", so that "apt install munipack" works well.
This is, however, your decision.

If you want to add a citation, you could consider adding a file
debian/upstream/metadata with a reference; see 

https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata

Best regards

Ole