Hi Cédric,
El 21/10/2013 17:28, "Cédric Boutillier" <boutil@debian.org> escribió:
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:14:49PM +0200, David Suárez wrote:
> > Hi Cédric,
>
> > > There seems to be some issues about the license.
> > > The disclaimer at the top of debian/copyright and fix_license_patch
> > > mention that the software is under Ruby's license. However, according to
> > > the LICENSE file from upstream (which present in the github repo, but
> > > not in the gem [1]), the license is "Free for any use with your own risk!"
> > > our public domain. The gem metadata say its Public Domain License.
> > >
> > > I would suggest to:
> > > - use github tarball instead of the gem (at least temporarily) to have
> > > the LICENSE file included
> > > - fix the copyright file, and fix_license_patch to reflect upstream's
> > > choice for a license
> > >
> > > 1: https://github.com/apalmblad/ruby-shadow/issues/12
>
>
> > Updated, thanks.
>
> I have a question:
> shouldn't your get-orig-source target create a .orig.tag.gz tarball,
> instead of a .tar.gz? Once generated and moved in the parent directory,
> dpkg-source complains that there is no upstream source
> ../ruby-shadow_2.2.0.orig.tar.{bz2,gz,lzma,xz}.
>
> Cédric
>
A typo, my bad. I will change it and reupload again.
Thanks,
David