Seeking a little advice as to completeness:
Updated bug from RFP to ITP
Set changelog to close bug
Updated rules to exclude 'inc' directory during build
Updated control to include:
- libmodule-install
- debhelper 13
- add missing description - taken from POD in Module::FITeque.pm
Updated copyright file:
- copyright only yielded one year 2007
- add missing 'inc/Module' copyright
- add BSD-3-Clause based on content of LICENSE file
- set the 'debian/*' as BSD-3-Clause rather than Artistic, and retained Artistic licence clause for the 'inc/Module'
Questions:
1. Given only one year being found, do I need to email the developer to obtain more information on copyright years, or leave as 2007, or include the Berne Convention?
2. The LICENSE file contained the BSD-3-Clause licence without explicitly stating it, and the README indicated BSD, with an online search confirming the actual licence text included matched.
Does this suffice, or do I need to advise the developer to include the licence name in the licence file?
Also, at the completion of 'dh-make-perl', an information message in the copyright file indicates: 'License: unparsable',
Does 'dh-make-perl' look for licence by name or text, and ergo would this constitute a reason bug to log that the licence was not recognised?
3, The original source does not contain any 'META.[json|yml] files, which was reported as an error during the 'dh-make-perl' execution.
Are these files mandatory?
4. Did I miss anything?
Thanks in advance for any responses
--
Ken Ibbotson
E:
keni@computer.org
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)