On Tue Feb 23 13:56, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xslthl/xslthl_2.0.1-1.dsc > > > > http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=xslthl > > > > It appears to be lintian clean. > Could you import it on the pkg-java svn ? > > Otherwise, a priori, I don't see any problem.
I do, it almost certainly should be default-jdk, not default-jdk-builddep. Also (not crucial, but) - you're licencing the package as GPL-2+ but the software is BSD-alike, which makes the resulting package GPL-2+. We generally recommend using the same licence for the packaging as for the software. I'd also recommend the dh 7 style of debian/rules, but that's just personal preference. Licence review shows the following: several files are missing licence headers (not a problem per-se, but upstream might like to know). What is a problem is that ./examples/sources/example-javascript.xml says: * @projectDescription Javascript snippet to generate the lyrics of the song "99 Bottles".^M * Copyright (c) 2008 Ariel Flesler - aflesler(at)gmail(dot)com | http://flesler.blogspot.com^M * Date: 3/27/2008^M * @author Ariel Flesler^M * --This script follows the standard specified by scriptDoc: http://scriptdoc.org/^M with no licence grant, so needs to be clarified or stripped out. This is true of a number of other examples there, some of which have no licence header and some have a copyright statement and no licence grant. Since they all appear to bet third-party, this makes it harder to ignore the lack of header than the files in the main source tree. ./examples/sources/example-xml.xml is licenced under the GPL, but not mentioned in debian/copyright, nor are any of the other examples. Personally, I'd recommend stripping all the examples from the source tarball. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
