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

Re: QGFE, a couple of questions

On Sun, 13 May 2007 14:11:48 +0200
Giorgio Pioda <gfwp@ticino.com> wrote:

> Hallo mentors,
> I've packaged qgfe and is now almost mature, downloadable at:
> http://web.ticino.com/gfwp/debian/qgfe-1.0/

The location of the .dsc file is what mentors need:

Plus the description of the package:
Description: QT based Gnuplot Front End
 Qgfe is a GUI for gnuplot so that there is no need to learn gnuplot
 language to use it.

Which seems far too brief to me. If one does not need to learn gnuplot
to use your package, you can reasonably assume that one might not have
that clear an understanding of what gnuplot can do and therefore your
description is less than adequate. Also, are there features of gnuplot
that your package cannot replicate? (It's fairly common for a GUI
application to be unable to use all of the features of the command line

Unfortunately, I will not have time to sponsor this package. Hopefully
one of the other sponsors will take it from here.

I've only taken a cursory glance at the package, there may be more
errors than just this:

You should include the full licence notice in debian/copyright:

   This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
   the Free Software Foundation; version 2 dated June, 1991.

   This package is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
   GNU General Public License for more details.

   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
   along with this package; if not, write to the Free Software
   Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston,
   MA 02110-1301, USA.

> 1) The icons used by qgfe are taken from the following *.rpm:
> menu-icons-default-0.1-alt2.noarch.rpm
> which is distributed under GPL licence. Is it
> a problem? (I didn't succeed in finding the copyright of the icons, but
> I may resolve this in the future...)

Do you have reason to believe that the icons would be licenced
differently to the declaration in that package? After all, that package
would seem to be only for the icons.

> 2) In the debian/rules I didn't explicitly set CXXFLAGS, but these flags
> are set (spontaneusly and correctly) in the Makefile generated by qmake
> and fit the policy 10.1. Do I have to express CXXFLAG explicitly in
> debian/rules or is sufficient to leave the as is?

Definitely leave as is. Things like this should NOT be overridden
without good reason - cross-compilation of such packages may require
different flags to be specified and it is a major PITA if the package
clobbers the cross-compiling options.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpBqGAweRs_M.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: