On 02/03/10 at 06:31 +0200, Will Daniels wrote: > > You might want to add a comment following DEP4 for > > debian/patches/repack-deprecate-rubygems. Even if the patch is very > > simple, it's still a good practice. > > > > > I have added now a header note on the quilt patch and a comment in the > patched files, but I don't think I understand what you mean by "DEP4". > Is this a reference to the Debian Enhancement Proposal for tdebs or have > I misunderstood? :D
Sorry, I meant DEP3. http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ > > Unfortunately, it seems that we often lack packages for some of the > > libraries required to run ruby tests. > > > > > We have the necessary libraries to run them, but I don't know if there > is a special target in the build rules for running tests (I've never > encountered such myself) or if you tend to distribute them in the > package (and if so, which package)? if the tests can be used as examples, it might be a good idea to include them, for example in a -doc package. > >> 3. The upstream sources include scripts to generate the lib's homepage > >> on rubyforge. I did not think it of value to attempt to package this for > >> docs or anything else. For starters, it begins with instructions to > >> "sudo gem install oauth" etc. > >> > > > > That's probably fine. Is there any reason to believe that the copyright > > would be different here? > > I don't see any specific or alternative attribution of authorship, > copyright or license for the website files, so presumably they just fall > under the main copyright and license? The MIT license is actually stated > in the HTML content of the index file itself, applying to "this code", > so I would expect that implies the inclusion of itself sufficiently? > > There is a javascript with an additional copyright there (and a > different license - LGPL) but I cannot see anything that is incompatible > with DFSG to hold in the orig source archive, and if these website files > are not distributed in the binary packages then do we still need to list > it in copyright? All licences for files included in the source tarball must be mentioned in debian/copyright (and be free, of course). Debian also distributes the source tarball, so it could also be sued if only the source tarball contains non-free files. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [email protected] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [email protected] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | _______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
