fixed in mentors
Hi tobias, I'm ccing debian-legal for the license issue
>(Please note, I just can review, but I can't sponsor you.)
thanks for the review, it was highly appreciated
>- XSBC-Original-Maintainer is ubuntu specific, please remove.
already removed a while ago
>- The versioned dependency on doxygen is not needed as oldstable
> fulfills it already.
>- same for cmake
>- Vcs-Bzr/Vcs-Broswe is to keep the Debian bits of the packaging, not
> ot the Ubuntu ones. Maybe put the Debian one on its own branch and
> update those fields?
>Regarding the license of src/core/util/unicode/*...
>Well, this license look weird. The original header from the original
>authors in the file says LGPL-2+ and the header added by upstream says
>dual-licensing Apache2/LGPL3+ as the rest of the project.) I think that
>needs some clarification, as upstream cannot simply re-license a file
>with different terms without approval from the original authors. Also,
>searching the Net for this files reveals some almost identical copy, so
>I think it has not been completely rewritten to void the original copyright.
>According Wikipepedia, Apache 2.0 and (L)GPL-2 combined could be problematic,
>but IANAL, maybe you should discuss this on debian-legal.
cc'd debian-legal, IANAL either, but upstream is highly responsive, so I think if needed we can work with them to rewrite/relicense the files
>Copyright: 2012 Openismus GmbH <http://openismus.com/>
>Your name's missing here.
>I'd recommend also to use the same license for debian/* as upstream, otherwise it could be
>problematic for them to e.g include patches you're going to submit. But as you cannot
>relicense yourself and with the company defunct you cannot ask them... Maybe repackage from scratch?
Added both names, removed the 2012 copyright (the package is rewritten from scratch, we made so many changes that no files have been kept as they were originally)
Changed the license to Apache or GPL, I hope is good (debian-legal please correct me if wrong)
>They need a dep3 header.
mmm yes, I already added the description a while ago, anyway all the patches have been accepted upstream, so I would like to ask for a new release and drop the completely, this is why they have just a "description" field and the clarification that the patch is already upstream
(I can add dep3 if needed, but seems useless at this point)
>You don't need to install README.rst, as it mostly contains build instructions which are
>not neccssary for the binary packages.
>The package is not building using pbuilder:
already fixed since a while, talking with upstream about the subversion problem, now tests are not really implemented, so disabling for this moment is the best solution.
(I'm working on a patch for them)
Thanks for the precious feedbacks,