Re: RFS: polygraph
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:19:47 +0100, Michael Tautschnig <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
> Sorry for the huge wait for a first reply to your post.
> > Dear mentors,
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "polygraph".
> > * Package name : polygraph
> > Version : 4.0.11-1
> > Upstream Author : The Measurement Factory, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > * URL : http://www.web-polygraph.org
> > * License : Apache-2.0
> > Section : net
> I have now started to review this package and found at least two fundamental
Thanks for review.
Note that the package has been already uploaded by Tollef Fog Heen.
> - The Apache license also gives a fairly precise description how it is to be
> applied to your work, as can be seen at the very end of
> The codebase of polygraph does not seem to follow this requirement, which (1)
> makes checking for proper licensing extremely hard and (2) may even be in
> violation with the license requirements.
I see how the non-standard preamble can make licensing checking harder
(though, I do not consider it extremly hard). Do you use some tool for
Can you please explain how non-standard preamble violates the license
terms? I do not see any requirements on the preamble format in the
Apache license text. Note that the appendix which describes it goes
after the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" line.
Do you argue that non-standard preamble renders the package not
apropriate for Debian?
> - Your package fails to build:
> Ssl.cc: In constructor ‘SslCtx::SslCtx(SslCtx::SslProtocol, const String&)’:
> Ssl.cc:33:27: error: ‘::SSLv2_method’ has not been declared
> Other than that the package looks fine to me, but given this FTBFS this review
> remains very incomplete.
Yep, I am aware of the issue. It was broken by OpenSSL 1.0 upload to
unstable. SSLv2 is disabled now, hence the build failure. See Debian bug
#589706 . The package was building fine in unstable just few days
ago. I will prepare a new package soon.
> Best regards,