Hi,
> ruby-mustache: > lintian-clean (except missing upstream changelog) and builds in a clean > chroot. > I believe it is good to go. You could gain readability in > debian/copyright by using a standalone paragraph for the Expat License > and refer to it twice. I changed that. > ruby-rdiscount: > lintian-clean (except missing upstream changelog) and builds in a clean > chroot. > The short name for the license used is BSD-4-clause, according to DEP-5. > You could distinguish the files that are copyright David Parsons (those > in ext/, or almost), and Ryan Tomayko. It is a best practice to use the > same license for the packaging and the package itself. > You need not (and must not) exclude from the repo files constructed > during packaging. They are removed during the target clean: of > debian/rules. I changed the name for the BSD. My own stuff is now simply public-domain, that way, the license is even broader than the upstream software, posing no further restrictions. I cannot see the clear line between the two authors, so I just keep them both for all, so I do not take any copyright claims away from either one. If I delete the .gitignore, I get a lot of stuff after I build the package … why does the ignore file hurt? > ruby-ronn: > lintian-clean and builds in a clean chroot, and seems to work. The > file AUTHORS lists four names, but only one is in a copyright field. Added the other three, simplified the duplicate license paragraph too. Martin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
