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

Bug#1011368: RFS: libkdumpfile/0.4.1-1 [ITP] -- Python bindings for libkdumpfile9



On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 09:35:58PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote:
> When you have a pristine-tar branch please keep that updated.
> I advise you to drop that branch. Else, please recreate it with 0.5.0 only.
Thanks! Looks like I had it recreated but forgot to push it. Since it is
not really that useful I just deleted it.
> 
> The d/copyright shortnames should shorten .0 license version endings.
> So GPL-3.0+ should be GPL-3+.
Noted.
> 
> Also licensed under GPL-3+ are the following files:
> configure.ac
> The Makefile.am files that are not already in d/copyright
> 
> Please really check every file.
> 
Ah, good point, thanks. I just audited every file that has a Copyright
(C) line -- and doing that too for drgn (I did it before but didn't do a
case insensitive search, and... turns out there's both (C) and (c).

(also, per your next message - that's a handy tip about Salsa CI. I was
just going by the dh output, I wonder if perhaps it should contain
instructions about using the default CI recipe)

Quick question (applies to drgn, not libkdumpfile) - if the tarball
contains some m4 rules copied verbatim from autotools, do I have to list
them in d/copyright? 

Thanks,

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: