Hi Maintainer, me writing in the name of a new trainee, though I agree with his findings.
tests/tests-jsx.js providence: I found [1] which looks to be the code (not in fbtest.js, but fbtest.js.rec), but there is a comment saying that the code is automatically generated. So I am not sure that your source package contains the preferred format for modification. Also, how did you determine the copyright of that file? The whole esprima-fb project looks to be copyright several different people. [1] https://github.com/facebookarchive/esprima/blob/fb-harmony/test/fbtest.rec.js *** test/tests.js says: // Tests largely based on those of Esprima // (http://esprima.org/test/) -- in the sense of having adapted code? Or is it just "inspired by"? *** bin/test262.whitelist: looks like a generated file? *** The list of authors in the `Files: *` stanza needs to be updated from AUTHORS; several are missing. ** OTHER COMMENTS ** There is a Lintian warning about `License: BSD-2` being inconsistent with `License: BSD-2-clause`. *** In acorn-dynamic-import-4.0.0, upstream's LICENSE says 2016 but d/copyright says 2017-2018. *** In node-acorn-jsx, upstream's license says 2012-2017; but d/copyright says 2012-2018. *** Copyright holders of test/tests-harmony.js: I would use commas rather than hyphens to separate the years, as that is closer to what's -- bye Joerg === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
