Re: [MoM] incorporating phyutility into the packages
Hi Stephen,
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014, Stephen Smith wrote:
I would be happy to take a look at the copyright contents. However, I am
a bit new to this so not exactly sure which bits are missing.
In debian/copyright the maintainer must document the copyright holder
and license of all files in the source tarball (wildcards are allowed). In
your case I found files with license LGPL in the header, so those need to
be added. On your website you say something about GPL2+ as license for
phyutility, but in debian/copyright it is GPL3+.
(http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/)
to be dense, just not sure. Maybe Andreas or you could point me in the
right direction and I can fix things. Aha, the copyright needs the jebl
authors as well I am guessing?
Yes, the authors and more important the license of their files.
As for jebl being a separate package, it is a bit complicated. The original
one is no longer maintained (http://sourceforge.net/projects/jebl/) though
this older one is the one that is included in phyutility. Seems like those
sources aren't even available anymore. There is an updated
(https://code.google.com/p/jebl2/) one, but this is not the one used by
phyutility.
Oh, thats the answer I didn't expect. As there is a dependency on
libjebl2-java in debian/control I thought that your version of jebl is
just unused and could be removed from the source tarball (not the
original one but the one included in Debian).
So from phyutility's perspective, I am not sure it would be
helpful to have jebl2 as a package. Again, new to this, so happy to do
whatever is best.
jebl2 is already available in Debian, so the question is whether you could
use it in phyutility. If yes, you could repackage the sources and remove
your copy of jebl. If not, you might create a libjebl1 package which might
be useful for others (as there are no others sources available, you might
create this from your package).
Thorsten
Reply to: