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

Re: RFS: polygraph

Hi Michael.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:19:47 +0100, Michael Tautschnig <mt@debian.org> 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. <info@measurement-factory.com>
> > * 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
> problems: 

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 
>   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
>   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
license checking?

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

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 [1]. The package was building fine in unstable just few days
ago. I will prepare a new package soon.


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=589706

> Best regards,
> Michael

Reply to: