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

Re: RFS: ruby-test-unit

Dear Praveen,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:12:46AM +0530, Praveen A wrote:

> Builds in clean chroot, it is lintian clean.

> I think you can remove the commented dependency section (only
> development dependencies are listed) in control file.

> Maybe you can add a comment to rules why you are overriding it. May be
> mention the patch in changelog.

Thank you very much for reviewing the package. I implemented your comments.

> I'm not sure about handling ruby's license, because it already says
> GPL-2 or conditions below. So I think saying Ruby's license includes
> GPL-2. See how I did it in ruby-systemu. Also it is not listed in
> dep5, should we request it be added to list of licenses in dep5?

This is something I am struggling with indeed. I thought it could be a
bug in lintian, since the Ruby license is a license by itself, even if
it refers to GPL. But then I realized that you can find ruby libraries
distributed under the specific conditions of Ruby or GPL, but the GPL
can be: v2, v2 or v3, or v2+. And this has to be specified somehow.

So I came to the (personnal conclusion) that what I should call Ruby
license are the specific conditions mentionned explicitely in the
COPYING file below the header, and that I need to precise which version
of the GPL I am referring to.

With this convention, Ruby1.8 and Ruby1.9.1 are thus licensed GPL2 or
Ruby. ruby-ttfunk is GPL2 or GPL3 or Ruby. And mentioning the specific
version of GPL makes lintian happy :) Has anybody else another
opinion on this issue?

The fact that Ruby is not listed in the keyword list for License short
name is not an issue. This list does not contain Python Software
Foundation License either. Moreover, the drivers of DEP-5 do not really
want to modify the text before it is definitely integrated to Debian
policy and reaches its final destination on the website (a modification
would imply a new format version...)

Best regards,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: