On Mon Feb 01 21:15, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > > - is there any reason why you are depending on openjdk rather than > > default-jdk? If not, you should depend on default-jdk. You should also > > probably include the other virtual packages (java6-runtime etc) > > > > - ditto, you should build-dep on default-jdk > > This was just laziness on my part. It is already fixed to depend on > the correct packages. cobertura source package now Build-Depend > on default-jdk-builddep and the binary packages Depend on > default-jre-headless | java2-runtime-headless | java2-runtime. (haven't looked at the package yet, but) you should build-dep on default-jdk, not default-jdk-builddep (it's very badly named, I plan to get this fixed), and you should also include java5-runtime-headless and java6-.... in the alternates list. > > - (biggest issue here): Apache 1.1 licenced code seems not to be linkable with > > GPL-2+ licenced code: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and > > you have both in cobertura. You should probably raise this with upstream and > > see what they say. > > Upstream clarify this in her website > (http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html ): > > "The use of the Apache Software License in Cobertura is very straight forward. > Cobertura includes a set of ant tasks which can be used to call Cobertura. Ant > itself is licensed under the Apache Software License, Version 2.0. Because ant > tasks are loaded directly into the runtime of ant, and the GPL is incompatable > with all versions of the Apache Software License, ant tasks can not be licensed > under the GPL. > > For this reason, the Cobertura ant tasks are licensed under the Apache Software > License, Version 1.1. And because these ant tasks are not GPL-compatable, but > the rest of Cobertura is GPL, when these ant tasks invoke Cobertura they must > do so by exec'ing a new JVM." > > If this is not clear, what's the correct thing to do? Contact > upstream? debian-legal? Ah, thank you, yes, this is perfectly correct, you should paste that into debian/copyright so everyone knows what is going on (particularly the FTP masters when they do the same review in the NEW queue) Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature