Re: RFS: libdiscid
On (01/10/06 18:28), Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
> James Westby wrote:
> > Hi, I cannot sponsor, but I have a few comments.
> >
> > * You shouldn't use ${Source-Version} in debian/control any more
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/09/msg00228.html
>
> The policy suggests to use ${Source-Version}. I'd rather stick to it until it's
> changed there.
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-intradeps
>
See
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383040
for an example bug that is the fault of using this field.
Yes, the field is new, and so it hasn't made it to policy yet, but there
is a reason it has been added, and this is to solve a simple yet
irritating problem.
> > * Your debian/copyright is slighly lacking. You should note which
> > files go with each copyright statement. Also there is at least one
> > file not under the GPL, and this should be noted and it's license
> > included.
>
> No file from that tarball under the GPL. :)
Sorry, reading too quickly.
>
> There are two files with originally non-LGPL licenses, but in both cases the
> original license allows you to relicense. After relicensing is the whole tarball
> under LGPL.
The file i was talking about was the public domain one. I didn't
actually go and look up its license, but if it allows it to be
relicensed then that license should be quoted with a mention that that
is what has happened.
>
> > * Add a copyright and license statement about your debian/packaging.
>
> I'd prefer not to. AFAIK, it's not mentioned in any official documentation that
> I should.
But your packaging has copyright that belongs to you, and if you do not
distribute it under a license then you are causing problems. They may
not be seen as serious, but if you add two lines to debian/copyright
then they can disappear completely.
For what it is worth it is now included in the dh_make templates.
James
--
James Westby -- GPG Key ID: B577FE13 -- http://jameswestby.net/
seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!>|&7U.L#9E)Tu)T0>AM - secp256r1/nistp256
Reply to: