Bug#818724: RFS: task-spooler/0.7.6-1
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 05:40:59AM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> control: tag -1 moreinfo
> control: owner -1 !
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 07:59:35AM +0300, Alexander Inyukhin wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "task-spooler"
>
> sure thing :)
>
> > dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/task-spooler/task-spooler_0.7.6-1.dsc
> >
> > Changes since the last upload:
> >
> > * Imported Upstream version 0.7.6
> > * Update patches
> > * Bump standards version to 3.9.7
> > * Use https for VCS-* fields
>
> though you got Vcs-Git wrong, you can't use /cgit/ to clone.
I had checked this before upload, and it worked.
> I suggest you just use /git/ for both fields, which has been valid for a
> bit more than a month.
Ok. Fixed that.
> > * Fix typo as suggested by lintian
>
> I see there patches with Last-Update: 2012, both marked as "Forwarded:
> yes" and without Forwarded header. I wonder, since 2012 it has not been
> applied?? (particularly weird for cppcheck.patch).
> Also, note that the Forwarded field should either be "no", "not-needed"
> or some pointers to where it has been forwarded (like a url to some bug
> thing).
All of these patches are not applied by upstream.
Some of them were forwarded before.
I sent relevant patches again and update headers.
> also, about d/copyright: I assume some years should be bumped, and I see
> this weird diff from the previous upload:
>
> - This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> - it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> - the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
> + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> + modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> + as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>
> why does it loses the version??
How do you generate that diff?
There is a some kind of uncertainty about the license.
The source code contains text of GPL-2 license without
explicit license grant, but the site claims GPL2+ for that code.
A discussion about the previous upload is here:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=781523
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/05/msg00001.html
So, in the previous upload license version is changed from GPL2+ to GPL2.
I am not sure about that version number thing, though.
Fixed that.
> Without considering that those copyright changes are not documented in
> d/copyright.
>
> and btw, having debian/* GPL-2+ technically makes upstream unable to
> pull patches from debian/patches/*, as GPL-2+ is incompatible with
> GPL-2 (only).
Isn't that a one-way incompatibility?
As far as I understand, GPL2+ is a set of licenses including GPL2,
so GPL2+ code could be used in GPL2-only project.
Anyway, I do not want to restrict use of these patches.
What license should I use?
I have uploaded a fixed package.
Thanks for review!
Reply to: