[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-ofed-devel] RFS: qperf

Hi, Brian,

على الجمعـة 10 تشرين الثاني 2017 ‫15:40، كتب Brian Smith:
> Hi Afif,
> Thanks for your feedback. I've made the changes that you suggested.


> Also, I've changed the upstream source to the linux-rdma github
> repository and updated the code to 0.4.10.

Ok. You should also update debian/watch so that it watches github and
pulls the source from there. You can see examples of github source lines
in uscan(1).

> Regarding the copyright, BSD should not have been in there and has been
> removed. COPYING is identical to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2.

License statements in individual file headers override a general license
statement. I guarantee you that the package will not get past the
ftpmasters if the BSD license isn't mentioned in d/copyright because of
this. In any case, the BSD license was small enough to fit into the
header of each file. The GPL is too big for that, so they distribute it
as a file by itself. Github sees it and puts a GPL badge on the top, but
it's not really an explicit statement of the license terms (which is
actually seen in the source code).

I would keep it organized the way you had before if *every* source file
has the same header (which looked to me to be the case). If there are
some that don't say anything, you could do the following:

# Every file, unless otherwise specified, is GPL-2
Files: *
Copyright: ...
License: GPL-2

# These files are exceptions and can be used with GPL-2 or
    <list all other files that apply statement>
Copyright: ...
License: GPL-2 or BSD-2-Clause/OpenIB

*or*, if you're really pretty sure upstream meant to have everything
GPL-2 only, they should clarify that in the license statements of the

> The
> GPL-2 license section in copyright now contains the GPL-2 notice and a
> pointer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2. Please let me know if that
> is not the right thing to do.

Your GPL-2 blurb still has the problematic "or (at your option) any
later version" clause. You can simply delete that string to resolve this

Last thing:

You're now working with dh_clean in debian/rules. I believe you meant to
use dh_auto_clean. dh_clean(1) [1] says "It does not run "make clean" to
clean up after the build process. Use dh_auto_clean(1) to do things like
that." You can just s/dh_clean/dh_auto_clean/g debian/rules to handle that.


1. https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/debhelper/dh_clean.1.en.html

Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي

Reply to: