Re: RFS: ruby-text 0.2.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Thanks for your comments, I fixed a few things (and pushed code), see below.
Olivier
Le 10/4/11 1:54 PM, Cédric Boutillier a écrit :
> Dear Olivier,
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:25:47AM +0200, Olivier Sallou wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have packaged ruby-text on alioth and it is ready for review/upload.
>> It is lintian clean, tested, and built with pbuilder.
>
>> Could someone review and upload it?
>
> Thanks for packaging ruby-text. I cannot upload your package, but I am
> having a look at your package right now. The package builds indeed
> correctly in pbuilder.
>
> I found a few details, that once fixed may result in a better package:
>
> - debian/copyright: you could use a single standalone paragraph License:
> GPL-2+, and refer to it in the two Files: paragraph.
> The file lib/text/porter_stemming is in the public domain, and not
> GPL-2+. This sould be mentionned in the copyright file.
Not sure this should be done. The public domain is the algorithm form
which the Ruby porting was done.
The file itself is an implementation of the algo which is public domain.
the file itself can be kept as GPL I think.
>
>
> - There is no LICENSE file in the source, but the homepage of the
> project mentions that ruby-text is licensed as Ruby, which is GPL-2 or
> specific Ruby conditions.
>
> - Some people consider that http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 is not a
> versioned url for the format of DEP-5 (lintian --pedantic on .dsc
> warns about that). You may prefer to use
> http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?revision=174
> But as I understand, it is a more a matter of taste, until DEP-5
> reaches its final destination on the website.
fixed thanks
>
> - lintian -i -I --pedantic on the .deb returns an absence of upstream
> changelog, but there is nothing you could do about that.
>
> - lintian -i -I --pedantic on .dsc warns also about a white space
> problem in the field Uploaders (too many whitespaces after the colon).
> The description could also be reviewed. There is a missing period
> after the enumeration of the algorithm (with an extra white space that
> should probably be removed at the beginning of the same line). There
> is no definite article for the beginning of the second sentence, and
> there is no mention of Ruby in the description (although it could be
> deduced from other fields that it is indeed a Ruby lib). I would have
> written: *This* Ruby library... library...)
fixed too
>
> - the test suite could have been run more simply with this one-liner in
> debian/ruby-tests.rb:
> Dir["test/*.rb"].each {|f| require f}
> There is in particular no need in this case to modify the $LOAD_PATH.
> It is taken care of by test_runner.rb.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Cédric
- --
Olivier Sallou
IRISA / University of Rennes 1
Campus de Beaulieu, 35000 RENNES - FRANCE
Tel: 02.99.84.71.95
gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (pgp.mit.edu)
Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=Elzr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: