Hi Gianfranco, and thank you for coming here to make a contribution :) I'v not uploaded a new version with the modifications yet, but I have a few questions below.
> please fix all the above (message #72 of bug 772823) I did all that was doable in a reasonable time. As said before, for what need more time and/or help from upstream, I've kept track of it in README.source > d/changelog: no need to put your name into [] > when you are the only one who worked on the package (and the signature > is your) done, thanks > d/rules: as said skipping tests is usually bad, please enable them if possible Yes, we'll try to do something with upstream, but I couldn't do that in a trivial way. As explained tests create VMs. This is tracked in README.source though. > d/copyright: "multiple-licenses" looks bad to me. > > Is something like "you can choose your favourite one?" > > so please say something like LGPL-3 or MIT or XFree86 > > I don't think the same file can be licensed under the tree licenses without > breaking > the law. (but IANAL) Actually I based the licensing of that file on that same file : http://sources.debian.net/src/spice-html5/0.1.4-1/debian/copyright/?hl=13#L13 I can ask the maintainer there if he knows more. > tests/* seems to be under LGPL-2.1+ > (and also something under plugins and somewhere else, looking by a grep of > the License keyword > > e.g. > ./plugins/sample/i18n.py:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) > any later version. > ./plugins/sample/ui/Makefile.am:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your > option) any later version. > ./plugins/sample/ui/config/Makefile.am:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at > your option) any later version. > ./plugins/sample/ui/pages/Makefile.am:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at > your option) any later version. > ./plugins/sample/ui/js/Makefile.am:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your > option) any later version. > ./plugins/sample/__init__.py:# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your > option) any later version. I guess upstream didn't update the files. I'll sent a mail to them to ask. > also grepping by copyright makes some result appear not listed in copyright > file. did you mean : ? ./m4/*.m4:dnl Copyright (C) 1996-2003, 2009-2010 Free Software Foundation, ./po/Makefile.in.in:# Copyright (C) 1995-1997, 2000-2007, 2009-2010 by Ulrich Drepper <drep...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> ./plugins/sample/po/Makefile.in.in:# Copyright (C) 1995-1997, 2000-2007, 2009-2010 by Ulrich Drepper <drep...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> ./config.rpath:# Copyright 1996-2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ./INSTALL:Copyright (C) 1994-1996, 1999-2002, 2004-2011 Free Software Foundation, ./INSTALL:are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright ./build-aux/config.rpath:# Copyright 1996-2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ./build-aux/pkg-version:# Copyright 2008-2012 Red Hat, Inc. not sure how to deal with those : they specify a copyright but no license except things like "unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved." So, does this means that they will fall under the license of the project (LGPL-3) or are those small notices considered as a license by itself? > please check if the license is really LGPL-3 and not LGPL-3+ COPYING specifies LGPL-3 ; do you mean people generally use LGPL-3+ and that upstream may have done a typo ? I'll ask. > patches needs a Description: field (and they are not dep-3) will do > the other stuff looks good, please ping when you have done the above, > and I'll do some testing on a built package. > > (btw would be nice to have a setup.py and install_requires, do let > python:Depends pick up the python dependencies automagically) Indeed! good suggestion given the number of python deps pulled and it seems to change quite often. I will ask for this too. Fred