Bug#784304: RFS: xerces-c/3.1.2+debian-1 [ITA] -- validating XML parser library for C++
Hi Bill,
srry, live got in between a bit..
Am Montag, den 12.10.2015, 18:39 -0400 schrieb Bill Blough:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:45:55PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Control: owner -1 !
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > let me also take a look at xerces.
> >
> > As usual, my unsorted list of observations:
> >
> > - Please rebase your package to the latest version in Debian, to
> > include the NMU (3.1.1-5.1) from Salvatore Bonaccorso.
>
> The patch is included in 3.1.2, so the patch added in the NMU is no
> longer
> necessary. But the changelog has been updated to include the NMU
> entry.
> > - Don't install CREDITS and README.
> Removed.
>
> >
> > d/control:
> > - (B-D) I think You only need dh-autoreconf, not both dh
> > -autoreconf
> > and autotools-dev
> Removed autotools-dev
>
> > - please wrap-and-sort...
> Done.
>
> > - for doxygen generated dokumentation, do ignore the minified-js
> > -linitan (and add an override). Do not fix it with libjs-query, you
> > can
> > get broken documentation. (There's a readme in the doxygen pacakge
> > about it)
> Done.
>
> > - doxygen should go into Build-Depends-Indep.
> > (Then you have either update the minimum dpkg-dev version to >=
> > 1.16.2
> > or --better-- drop the version requirement -- it is already
> > filfilled
> > in old-old-stable.
> Done.
>
> >
> > I'd turn the java dependency around -- first the headless and then
> > the
> > normal one (the buildds will always take the first one, and I guess
> > the
> > headless is "leaner" -- but I did not verify this claim )
> That makes sense. Done.
>
> >
> > d/copyright:
> > - The additional copyrights needs to go into the Copyright section
> > of
> > the files; then delete the sentence "Additionally, portions..."
> The only references to FSF that I find are in the autotools related
> files:
> configure, Makefile.in, aclocal.m4, etc. I don't recall seeing other
> packages document those in d/copyright. How is this normally handled?
There are some packages documenting it, for example:
http://codesearch.debian.net/results/file%3Adebian%2Fcopyright%20config
ure/page_0
Policy also says the you have to have "verbatim" copyright information,
and this is understood that the information should also becomplete.
BTW, (sorry, this was my fault by pointing you into a wrong direction):
Actually, you need to reproduce the "verbatim" copyright information,
the license grant. That meant not the text in the src files ammended
with the NOTICES file.
The license grant would be for example (just taking a random file in
src/)
"
Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
(the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
"
(and then the content of the NOTICE file)
(and finally the link to the complete Apache 2.0 license in
/usr/share/common-licenses)
> Likewise the only reference I found to X Consortium is in
> config/install-sh.
>
> And the only references I found to W3C are in comments talking about various
> standards. I don't see anything that looks like it would be
> copyrighted
> them. I found no references to MIT, ERCIM, or Keio.
>
> Honestly, I'm not sure how to proceed. What do you suggest?
Just document what's there. It might be just some leftover or
obsolete..
--
tobi
Reply to: