Re: Looking for a mentor for a couple of projects
Hi Gianfranco, and thank you for coming here to make a contribution :)
I'v not uploaded a new version with the modifications yet, but I have a few
questions below.
> please fix all the above (message #72 of bug 772823)
I did all that was doable in a reasonable time. As said before, for what need more
time and/or help from upstream, I've kept track of it in README.source
> d/changelog: no need to put your name into []
> when you are the only one who worked on the package (and the signature
> is your)
done, thanks
> d/rules: as said skipping tests is usually bad, please enable them if possible
Yes, we'll try to do something with upstream, but I couldn't do that in
a trivial way. As explained tests create VMs.
This is tracked in README.source though.
> d/copyright: "multiple-licenses" looks bad to me.
>
> Is something like "you can choose your favourite one?"
>
> so please say something like LGPL-3 or MIT or XFree86
>
> I don't think the same file can be licensed under the tree licenses without breaking
> the law. (but IANAL)
Actually I based the licensing of that file on that same file :
http://sources.debian.net/src/spice-html5/0.1.4-1/debian/copyright/?hl=13#L13
I can ask the maintainer there if he knows more.
> tests/* seems to be under LGPL-2.1+
> (and also something under plugins and somewhere else, looking by a grep of the License keyword
>
> e.g.
> ./plugins/sample/i18n.py:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> ./plugins/sample/ui/Makefile.am:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> ./plugins/sample/ui/config/Makefile.am:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> ./plugins/sample/ui/pages/Makefile.am:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> ./plugins/sample/ui/js/Makefile.am:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> ./plugins/sample/__init__.py:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
I guess upstream didn't update the files. I'll sent a mail to them to ask.
> also grepping by copyright makes some result appear not listed in copyright file.
did you mean : ?
./m4/*.m4:dnl Copyright (C) 1996-2003, 2009-2010 Free Software Foundation,
./po/Makefile.in.in:# Copyright (C) 1995-1997, 2000-2007, 2009-2010 by Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
./plugins/sample/po/Makefile.in.in:# Copyright (C) 1995-1997, 2000-2007, 2009-2010 by Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
./config.rpath:# Copyright 1996-2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
./INSTALL:Copyright (C) 1994-1996, 1999-2002, 2004-2011 Free Software Foundation,
./INSTALL:are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
./build-aux/config.rpath:# Copyright 1996-2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
./build-aux/pkg-version:# Copyright 2008-2012 Red Hat, Inc.
not sure how to deal with those : they specify a copyright but no license
except things like "unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or
without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved."
So, does this means that they will fall under the license of the project
(LGPL-3) or are those small notices considered as a license by itself?
> please check if the license is really LGPL-3 and not LGPL-3+
COPYING specifies LGPL-3 ; do you mean people generally use LGPL-3+ and that
upstream may have done a typo ? I'll ask.
> patches needs a Description: field (and they are not dep-3)
will do
> the other stuff looks good, please ping when you have done the above,
> and I'll do some testing on a built package.
>
> (btw would be nice to have a setup.py and install_requires, do let
> python:Depends pick up the python dependencies automagically)
Indeed! good suggestion given the number of python deps pulled and it seems to
change quite often.
I will ask for this too.
Fred
Reply to: