> 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
