Control: tags -1 +confirmed On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 13:36:37 +0200 Raul Tambre <r...@tambre.ee> wrote: > Control: tags -1 -moreinfo > > Hi Phil, > > Thank you for the prompt review, it's much appreciated! > > > 3. Licenses [4]: Issue > > > > The 'Files: *' and 'Files: debian/*' section would normally share the same > > license. Is there a particular reason why this is not the case with this > > package? > > This was originally packaged as part of my employment at Clevon AS. The > original is located here: https://gitlab.com/clevon/clebian/boost-ext-ut > We had the policy to licence Debian packaging code written wholly by us as 0BSD > to make it as easy as possible for it to hopefully someday make it upstream to > Debian itself (i.e. now). > > Since it was originally 0BSD and I prefer it myself I kept it as the licence > for the Debian packaging code. Though as I understand MIT is compatible (and > slightly more opposing) so I could change to that and there probably wouldn't > be any legal concerns. Let me know if I should do this or it's actually fine > as-is given the above explanation. > > If there's a Debian policy in this regard then a reference would be useful. For > packaging work of my own in the future I was also planning to use 0BSD for > `debian/*` but if that's frowned upon or would hinder it making it to the > archive then I would keep that in mind. > > > A. Package tests, results? > > > > All tests passed (6 asserts in 4 tests) > > 2 tests skipped > > make[3] : on quitte le répertoire > > « /tmp/reprotest.g20NQj/const_build_path/const_build_path/obj-x86_64-linux- > > gnu » > > [ 99%] Built target ft > > [100%] Linking CXX executable ut_test > > cd /tmp/reprotest.g20NQj/const_build_path/const_build_path/obj-x86_64- linux- > > gnu/test/ut && /usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_link_script > > CMakeFiles/ut_test.dir/link.txt --verbose=1 > > /usr/bin/c++ -g -O2 -ffile-prefix- > > map=/tmp/reprotest.g20NQj/const_build_path/const_build_path=. -fstack- > > protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat -Werror=format-security - > > fcf-protection -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-- dependency- > > file=CMakeFiles/ut_test.dir/link.d CMakeFiles/ut_test.dir/ut.cpp.o -o ut_test > > cd /tmp/reprotest.g20NQj/const_build_path/const_build_path/obj-x86_64- linux- > > gnu/test/ut && ./ut_test > > > > ===============================================================================
> > tests: 13 | 7 failed > > asserts: 9 | 2 passed | 7 failed > > These indeed look suspicious but part of testing a testing library is to make > sure that test failures work and they get printed correctly! I manually verified > that the tests do actually run through successfully and match the upstream's CI > output. > > All the best > Raul Hi Raul, Your explanation is absolutely reasonable. If this could be documented in 'debian/README.debian', it will hopefully avoid future questions. I hope upstream can be encouraged to clean up how it outputs results, I am sure they know what they mean, but most others have not got the time to decipher such confusion. :-) I have marked the package as 'confirmed' ready for DD review and possible upload. Regards Phil -- Donations... Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg -- "I play the game for the game’s own sake" Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans -- Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas Website: https://kathenas.org Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg Threads: https://www.threads.net/@kathenasorg --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
