"Ondřej Surý" <[email protected]> wrote: >Some comments below: > >On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Scott Kitterman < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Unfortunately, the rails-4.0 is not in a condition to be accepted in >the >> Debian >> archive at the moment. In my review, I found a number of issues >major and >> minor that should be corrected. Some of these may exist in the >existing >> rails >> package, I did not check. If so, these are bugs in the package. >> >> There is no need to ship debian/patches/series as an empty file in >format >> 3.0 >> (quilt). It will be created if needed. >> > >That is surely not a reason while to reject package, right?
No. I wouldn't have rejected just for that. > >> All of the Conflicts/Replaces relationships in debia/control should >be >> Breaks/Replaces. >> > >Mostly done with the exception of virtual packages. > > >> There is at least one case of an extra copy of the MIT license file >being >> installed. These should be removed. >> >> >usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/rails/generators/rails/plugin_new/templates/MIT-LICENSE >> > >Nope, the license file is there for templating new projects and has >it's >place there. > > >> actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/journey/parser.rb is a generated file. > It >> looks >> like the source needed to regenerate it during build (parser.y) is >there, >> but >> the package build does not do this. The generated file is not the >> preferred >> form of modification, so in Debian we need to ensure the identical >file >> can be >> generated. The best way to do this is to regenerate it during >package >> build. In >> some cases, it's OK to just manually verify things can be rebuilt and >not >> do it >> during the build, but only if there is a substantial barrier to >actually >> rebuilding it. That's unlikely to be the case here. >> > >Regenerating parser.rb with racc now. > > >> Although there is not confusion about the intended license, it is >better >> for the >> license header to be put in each file rather than just a copy of the >> license in >> each top level directory (there are some files that do have this). >(not a >> reject >> issue, but something you might discuss with upstream) >> >> Files copyright David Heinemeier Hansson are Copyright (c) 2004-2013 >David >> Heinemeier Hansson and not just 2004. >> > >Fixed. > > >> The following files are Copyright (c) 2006 Assaf Arkin ( >> http://labnotes.org) and >> under MIT and/or CC By license: >> actionpack/test/controller/selector_test.rb >> actionpack/test/controller/assert_select_test.rb >> actionpack/lib/action_view/vendor/html-scanner/html/selector.rb >> actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/testing/assertions/selector.rb >> Needs to be documented in debian/copyright. >> > >Fixed. > > >> This icons in guides/assets/images/icons (as indicated in the README) >were >> done >> by Stuart Rackham based on work by Jakub Steiner that appears to be © >Jakub >> Steiner, © Novell, Inc. As indicated on the referenced web page, >these are >> probably licensed GPL v2, but it's not clear and not documented in >debian/ >> copyright regardless. License needs to be clarified and documented. >> > > >> guides/assets/javascripts/syntaxhighlighter/shBrushCpp.js is also >> Copyright 2006 >> Shin, YoungJin. The additional copyright holder needs to be >documented. >> > >Removed full guides/ directory from +dfsg repacked, since it's just >documentation available on the web. It might get repackaged in the >future >when we clear the licensing of all files. > > >> The following jpegs have no clear license and are copyright of other >> parties. >> Their license needs to be clarified and (if free) documented in >> debian/copyright. Otherwise they need to be removed from the >package: >> actionpack/test/fixtures/multipart/mona_lisa.jpg is Copyright 1995 >Nicolas >> Piochÿ with no license information. >> > >Removed. It's licensed under PD-Art (from wikimedia). > > >> guides/assets/images/jaimeiniesta.jpg says Copyright 2006, but no >> indication of >> who the copyright holder is. >> >> guides/assets/images/vijaydev.jpg is Copyright 2007 Apple Inc., all >rights >> reserved. >> >> guides/assets/images/rails_guides_kindle_cover.jpg is Copyright 2007 >Apple >> Inc., >> all rights reserved >> > >If you look at the contents of the files it's quite clear that the >Apple >Inc. copyright is some boilerplate from software that generated the >picture. I am quite sure that the guides/ author's picture is not >copyrighted by Apple. > >Same with the other author's picture. But I guess it needs >clarification >from them. > > >> Please address these issues and reupload. >> > >Done. > >Thanks for the review, >Ondrej You're welcome. Thanks for reuploading. I'll have another look at it. Scott K _______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
