Re: librtr: Request for review / upload (Re: Git repository for librtr)
Hi,
thanks for your reviews Samuel & Raphaël!
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:12:04 -0300
Samuel Henrique <samueloph@debian.org> wrote:
> d/watch: ok
> d/control: ok, but it's better with wrap-and-sort
I don't really like the warp-and-sort style for listing the
Build-Dependencies. Having the first b-d on a new line and all of them
with a trailing comma gives a lot more readable git diffs. If you
insist I'll change it through.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:04:03 +0200
Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Samuel Henrique wrote:
> > d/copyright:
> > * it looks like there are two template lines on the file, #9 and
> > #10
Removed.
> > * there are files not listed on d/copyright, I noticed at least two
> > of them: scripts/checkpatch.pl and cmake/modules/FindGcov.cmake,
> > please do a general review and document all files, this is
> > something which makes the package get rejected by ftp-master
> Well, we don't want documentation of each individual file when it's
> not needed. But there are some GPL files in the middle of the
> BSD-licensed files and they should be documented, yes.
>
> "licensecheck -r ." helps to find the files:
>
> $ licensecheck -r .|grep GPL
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl: GPL
> ./cmake/modules/FindGcov.cmake: GPL (v3 or later)
> ./cmake/modules/FindLcov.cmake: GPL (v3 or later)
> ./cmake/modules/Findcodecov.cmake: GPL (v3 or later)
I've made sure the license of those files is properly documented in
d/copyright. I also did a quick walk through all of the files manually
and found one more GPL v2 licensed file that licensecheck missed.
Other than the above changes, a lintian informational tag taught me
about the Build-Depends-Package control field in the symbols file (see
`man deb-symbols`). I've added that as well and uploaded the changes to
salsa.
Thanks again
Lukas
Reply to: