> Hi Dariusz,
>
> reviewing.. As usual here an (unordered) list:
Thank you.
>
> -> please read d/README.source and act accordingly :)
Done. Deleted, since not needed anymore.
>
> -> d/copyright
> The source is dual-licensed. Please correct the license.
> The line
> Copyright (c) 2005-2009 Collecta, Inc.
> is misplaced (I think you wanted to put it two lines earlier)
> as this is not part of the license.
I always act according to the rule "when in doubt, copy the whole
license from upstream". Their MIT-LICENSE.txt is with this Copyright
line.
https://github.com/strophe/libstrophe/blob/master/MIT-LICENSE.txt
I deleted the line from there.
>
> Same below with the debian/* files.
>
> Regarding License.txt... They say
> "This program is dual licensed under the MIT *and* GPLv3 licenses."
> (emphasis by me) Do upstream mean "or" here? (I'm not sure if you can
> comply to both licenses at the same time; better ask debian-legal if the
> "and" is ok or if a sentence like "on your choice" is missing.) It would
> be anyway great if upstream could add a license header NOT refering to
> LICENSE.txt in every file ... as this could create problems if a file is
> to be used outside of libstrophe. It would be much clearer, also
I already created an issue in github to clean this. As for dual
license thing, I did ask for opinion on that months ago and got an
answer from Russ Albery, claiming that I could just "pick" a license.
Here is the relevan post:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/05/msg00055.html
I will also write to Debian legal to look at this.
>
> (As they link against openssl, they probably need the openssl exception
> when applying the GPL. Refer also to
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00113.html) Shouldn't
> be a problem for MIT, but IANAL.)
>
> -> d/docs has the license text files and you exclude them in again in
> d/rules...This program is dual licensed under the MIT and GPLv3
> licenses.
I cleaned this now, thanks.
>
> -> why no symbols file?
Added symbols file with the help of dpkg-gensymbols. Already in git.
>
> -> d/rules
> you should call bootstrap in override_dh_autoreconf, not in
> override_dh_auto_configure:
>
> override_dh_autoreconf:
> dh_autoreconf ./bootstrap.sh
>
> Then you also won't need to override autoclean.
> (I any prefer a clean file over overriding debhelper targets)
Super thanks for that !
>
> (Also please unset DH_VERBOSE when uploading...)
Yes, deleted now.
>
> "unused substitution variable ${misc:Pre-Depends}"
> Pre-Depend is missing in d/control (multi-arch support...)
>
According to policy 7.2, putting Pre-Depends should be first discussed
on dd@, or am I missing something ?
--
Dariusz Dwornikowski,
Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology
www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/
room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature