On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 06:29:33PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote: > On Tuesday 13 March 2018 13:58:07 CET Tobias Frost wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 06:48:10PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote: > > > On Sunday 11 March 2018 00:18:32 CET Gard Spreemann wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 7 March 2018 19:32:48 CET Tobias Frost wrote: > > > > > Please review d/copyright. I found at least one undocumented file > > > > > which > > > > > is licensed Apache 2.0 and another one under LGPL3+. Neither are in > > > > > d/copyright. > > > > > > > > I'm looking into this, and will get back to you. > > > > > > > > > > I've updated the copyright information for the Apache 2.0-licensed > > > file, as well as another MIT-licensed file with missing coverage. > > > > Thanks!. > > > > Note that some files are claimed copyright just by "20xx INRIA" and > > "20xx INRIA (France)" > > As copyright must be verbatim, you need to addtionalyl write this in > > d/copyright. > > Not sure about all those other variants of INRIA: Are they different > > organisattions (like a subsidiary) of just different writing of the same > > one? In the first case, you need to have one stanca for every different > > organisations, > > (hint: license-reconcile might help here) > > I got in touch with upstream, who says: > > [Begin quote] > This is a problem we have seen, but it was "too late", everybody > copy/paste the colleague copyright and just changed the Inria center's > name... I have started to change it every where, every time I fix a > bug, but from what you say, I shall change it once for every files ;-) > > The correct Copyright is "Inria". > > If you want, I can change it everywhere and make a new version if it > can accelerate the submission. > [End quote] > > It certainly sounds great if they can fix this upstream, but would a > statement like this suffice for now?
Thanks for clarify it with upstream! I guess it will be sufficient to store the email as comment in d/copyright, but probably less effort would be to just have an addtional Copyright: stanca for it (as you can combine paragraphs in d/copyright, it will be only one extra line in the Files: * section) > > Speaking about external sources... I see that there is also cpython in > > the source. As cpython is packaged, can it be also removed via > > Files-Exluded (as you said, you're repacking already, so we can reduce > > the size of the source package even more) > > Maybe I misunderstood, but I can't see a bundled cpython. Did you mean > the cython subdirectory? It just contains .pyx sources to be compiled > with cython. thanks for explaining! I thought those are cython source, I did not realize that it is only used by cython. -> disregard my comment... > > Older stuff already mentioned, but still not fixed: > > - many versioned build dependencies are already satisfied since > > oldstable. As thus those old version constraint can be removed, > > especially as this is a new package. > > I've fixed this now (but haven't made a new upload). > > > Thanks a lot for your help. I'll upload a new version (also having a > new dependency that has become necessary after a change to sid's > Python package) when I hear back from you about the copyright question > above. \o/ Looking forward for the upload! -- tobi > > Best, > Gard >