Bernhard R. Link schrieb: -Snipp- > Some things from a first shallow look: > > * None of those packages contains config.guess/config.sub nor uses them. > So there is no need to copy them in before configure. Removed. > * the repeated use of $(CURDIR) where a . or nothing at all would > have sufficed is a bit annoying. (especially when done unsafe and > unecessarily adding new problems if paths contain spaces). Actually, the unprotected use was only in the parts created by dh_make. I changed those. Also, I made the strings a bit shorter by using the variable $(DESTDIR) instead of $(CURDIR)/debian/foo. But leaving out $(CURDIR) completely... I like how it reminds me of where executables are and relative to which path I am working. Is it really that bad? > * having a build-indep and a build-arch (the latter doing nothing) > would be nice. Added. But install still depends on build => build-indep. I didn't understand that part of the policy (ch 4.9) very well: Should I make build-arch return with exit status 2 or can I just leave it as an empty target? > * most things starting with # from the templates can be removed when > not needed. That makes the whole thing much more readable. Removed. I kept them as a handy reference of what tools are available... > * The "For details, see ..." in the package description looks like a > candidate for a Homepage field instead. Homepage:-field added. > * Copyright information is incomplete. While copyright information > of the build files if often forgotten (but better should not be), > at least automake-idl seems to contain at least a partial fork > auf automake (as opposed to be generated or copied by automake). > Even if you do not install that stuff, it's copyrights and licenses > should be listed. For autoconf-orb I agree, the information is missing. I don't want to add comments assigning the copyright information to upstream without talking to them, first. On that note: would it even be Ok for me to add such copyright notices to the files, copying information from the COPYING file? Or is this not valid? But with automake-idl, where copyright information is present, I made a mistake. That package is GPL2, not GPL3 and the copyright holder is the FSF, not the upstream author of autoconf-orb! Sorry about that, it has been corrected in the newest upload. > > And let me say that GPLv3+ is a very strange license for those files, > as it makes them explicitly impossible to be used by GPLv2 programs. For autoconf-orb, I will ask. > It might be adviseable to put the license information into the distributed > .m4 files, so if they end up in a GPLv2 project, they can more easily > be spotted. Same as above. I can add notices once I got an Ok. > > The missing copyright information in most of the files also makes me > quite suspicious. It is not unusal for such collections to just contain > things from other sources and missing attribution (and thus a license > to distribute them). Some more checks into that might be appropriate. -Snipp- I took a few samples of source code and ran it through Google. It either didn't find any other matches or the surrounding text didn't even remotely look like the source-code. A new version of both packages is on mentors.debian.net. Thank you for your input, Olaf Mandel -- Olaf Mandel eMail Olaf@Mandel.name
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature