On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:49:42PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 16:32, Paul TBBle Hampson a écrit : > >> * debian/copyright: add licence section header between copyright part and > >> licence part.. Policy required it to be verbatim but you may still > >> seperate what is licence and what is copyright.. >> OK. How do I describe the statement of copyright and license for the >> Debian packaging? It's both license and copyright. > Well.. As explained before, copyright lists the guys that have worked in the > code, with statements like (c) 2007 Someone > Licence is the part that talks about rights granted on the code from the above > copyright owners.. > Simply add a Licence: line between copyright and the other part and its ok.. > Also, now that we come to this point, have you checked all file headers ? I > know it is a boring job, but it often gives you some very interesting > results... upstream authors are not always consistent with the licence they > give and some part of code they may take from other sources.. Given that you > have read the REJECT FAQ, I guess you are aware of this point.. Erk. The template in dh_make needs fixing then... Drat, I forgot to check the stuff I wasn't building. >_< There's a couple of copies of a four-clause BSD-licensed getopt.[ch], one attrubution-only type copyright in the jp3d library, and one java file that may be "freely used or adapted". I guess the question is, to reroll without the getopt stuff, or email upstream and try and explain the issue to them, as well as the issue with the sonames. And the jpwl header stuff. And by email I apparently mean 'sourceforge forum'. I've got a bad feeling about this... > >> * debian/control: still you define a libopenjpeg-tools, and still the > >> typo... >> Wait, which typo are you talking about? I fixed the short description, >> and there's a bunch of 'r's in the long description of libopenjpeg1 in >> my local copy, dunno if they made it to the upload. (My laptop keyboard >> seems to occasionally insert a whole bunch of 'r's in vim... >_<) > Yes I mean those r :) OK, fixed. >> I've renamed libopenjpeg-tools to openjepg-tools, but I remain convinced >> that this is needlessly inconsistent with libjpeg and libjasper's usage, >> and the libpkg guide. > Well, those utilities seem to be usefull outside of the library usage. > Take the user point of view, would you understand the a libopenjpeg-utils in > fact contains utilities that have a more general usage than only for testing > the library or whatever is library specific ? > Other formulation would be : why do you think this package name has to be > libopenjpeg specific ? The position I'm in is that if I want to see what came with a library, I'll look for it by package name, so if it starts with 'lib' it'll be in the output of an apt-cache search near the library itself. The short description tells me they're tools for the JPEG 2000 image compression codec, rather than being something library-specific like a *-config (which would be in -dev instead) and the long description even tells me what the tools are and what they do. If I want to find a tool to do something, I'd search on keywords, not names, and find it no matter what it's called. Mind you, in contrast to the below, the upstream project name is openjpeg, not libopenjpeg... Anyway, I've made the change, and I can appreciate both sides of the discussion. I'm not thrilled by the change, as I was of the understanding that without a clear style guide or policy position, such choices were at the descretion of the maintainer. > I can think of mpeg3-utils for instance... Given that there's no such thing as mpeg3, that's an awful example. ^_^ libmpeg3 is the name of the project, and mpeg3-utils has managed to lose the 'lib', so it doesn't look like it belongs to that project, while instead looking like it is a tool to manipulate data according to an imaginary MPEG standard. And the short description claims it's a library, too, since it seems to share the short description with libmpeg3-1 _I'd_ have pulled this up as an example of why I think openjpeg-tools is the wrong name, were I trying to argue that. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE On-hiatus Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/ -----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpAxPf2WjRiM.pgp
Description: PGP signature