Re: RFS: python-gearman
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 17:44, Oxan van Leeuwen <oxan@oxanvanleeuwen.nl> wrote:
> Hi Sandro,
>
> Thanks for your reply!
>
> On 04-02-11 16:35, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>
>> Hi Oxan,
>>
>> you decided to put the team in Uploaders: do you understand what it
>> means (for DPMT) ? (it's just a check ;)
>
> I think I did that according to the policy on Alioth [1], which has
> different content than on the wiki page [2]. Given that I'm fine with the
> team taking over
> when I'm too busy (hopefully not needed ;-)), I've switched the fields.
that's, that's very nice of you :)
>> debian/copyright
>> - ehm:
>> Files: debian/*
>> Copyright: 2010, 2011, Oxan van Leeuwen<oxan@oxanvanleeuwen.nl>
>> License: Apache-2 or GPL-2+
>>
>> either stay with apache-2 or with gpl2+: what's the need for this
>> uncertainty and the possible dual licensing for debian packaging code?
>> (hint: i'd go with the same license of upstream code, less legal issue
>> in case of patching and so).
>
> I think that was left over from packaging the older 1.x release (never
> submitted for inclusion into Debian), where I indeed licensed the packaging
> GPL-2+ to match upstream code. I've removed the GPL-2+ license from the
> copyright file as it doesn't make any sense now.
thanks!
>> - can you please specify where did you find the 2011 copyright for
>> upstream code? I can only see LICENSE.txt containing the 2010. Also,
>> can you please ask upsteram author to put a real name& email in
>> copyright notice? It's not a must but a nice to have :)
>
> I thought I found the 2011 somewhere, but that was wrong. apparantly not.
> I've asked the upstream author for his comments on the licensing [3] and
> changed the copyright year to 2010.
>
> [3] https://github.com/Yelp/python-gearman/issues/issue/8
>
>> debian/patches/01_include_docs_conf
>> - ask upstream to add teh file to the manifest, so it will be included
>> in the next tarball
>
> Done: https://github.com/Yelp/python-gearman/issues/issue/7
>
>> - you could upload to experimental, where sphinx>= 1 is alive and
>> kicking - what would you do?
>
> Well, given that I don't see much value in adding the source code to the
> documentation (it's already on your system and you usually don't need it), I
> prefer uploading to unstable.
ok then
>> - why you don't install .js files? ok, they should not be shipped in
>> the binary package but a link to libjs-query files instead, but you're
>> not making it either.
>
> I've added a link to the libjs-query package instead of completely removing
> it. Rationale behind the suggests instead of recommends is that the package
> will mostly be installed as a dependency of other packages (library package)
> and thus the documentation won't be read by most of the users. It also works
> fine without libjs-jquery. (other packages in the DPMT seem to be
> inconsistent, some use Recommends and some use Suggests).
yup that's fine.
Sorry I didn't noticed first: you can remove also "XB-Python-Version:
${python:Versions}" from d/control
Just a sanity check: the short descr say this package is an interface
to the Gearman libs, but no depends on any gearman package is in
d/control; what I'm not getting? :)
Other than that, I don't see any other points to fix, so let's get
those 2 squashed and we're ready to go.
Cheers,
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Reply to: