Hi Cédric, El 21/10/2013 17:28, "Cédric Boutillier" <[email protected]> escribió: > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:14:49PM +0200, David Suárez wrote: > > Hi Cédric, > > > > There seems to be some issues about the license. > > > The disclaimer at the top of debian/copyright and fix_license_patch > > > mention that the software is under Ruby's license. However, according to > > > the LICENSE file from upstream (which present in the github repo, but > > > not in the gem [1]), the license is "Free for any use with your own risk!" > > > our public domain. The gem metadata say its Public Domain License. > > > > > > I would suggest to: > > > - use github tarball instead of the gem (at least temporarily) to have > > > the LICENSE file included > > > - fix the copyright file, and fix_license_patch to reflect upstream's > > > choice for a license > > > > > > 1: https://github.com/apalmblad/ruby-shadow/issues/12 > > > > Updated, thanks. > > I have a question: > shouldn't your get-orig-source target create a .orig.tag.gz tarball, > instead of a .tar.gz? Once generated and moved in the parent directory, > dpkg-source complains that there is no upstream source > ../ruby-shadow_2.2.0.orig.tar.{bz2,gz,lzma,xz}. > > Cédric >
A typo, my bad. I will change it and reupload again. Thanks, David
