Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-24 Thread Jonas Smedegaard 
Quoting Pirate Praveen (2017-10-24 05:43:48)
> On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 03:49 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> >> Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level.
> > 
> > Just add context, I was asked to add this to copyright file by another
> > ftp master and it was not found by licensecheck.
> > 
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-August/020220.html
> > 
> > and it was accepted subsequently before Chris brought up again.
> 
> Just asked upstream about the license and my initial assumption about 
> these being under Apache license was correct 
> https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/6497

I am growing tired of your weird non-constructive parts of this 
conversation, Praveen: Please either respond(!) to Chris' points, or or 
if you insist on talking to yourself about different topic(s) then 
remove the Javascript mailinglist from that weird conversation.

For others following along: Praveen contacted me on irc requesting 
advice on this email thread, and I believe we had a sensible 
conversation.  In other words my remark here does not com out of thin 
air - I tried (albeit in a side-channel, by Praveens choice).

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-23 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 03:49 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level.
> 
> Just add context, I was asked to add this to copyright file by another
> ftp master and it was not found by licensecheck.
> 
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-August/020220.html
> 
> and it was accepted subsequently before Chris brought up again.

Just asked upstream about the license and my initial assumption about
these being under Apache license was correct
https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/6497



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 03:05 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level.

Just add context, I was asked to add this to copyright file by another
ftp master and it was not found by licensecheck.

http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2017-August/020220.html

and it was accepted subsequently before Chris brought up again.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 02:40 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I knew that much, hence I added the comment that author name is missing.
> Now if there is a LICENSE file in a directory, won't it apply to all
> files in that directory? Or should I just add Copyright: NONE?

I was wrongly thinking traceur code was embedded in babel and hence I
thought the LICENSE file applies to whole directory (which is often the
case for tests). But that is not the case. Please reject the last
uploads and I will remove the section from copyright file and make a new
upload.

Sorry about the whole discussion escalating to this level.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 02:35 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> But this is part of the license's documentation, not a statement about
> the package itself.
> It is part of the "How to apply the Apache License to your work"
> boilerplate...
> 

I knew that much, hence I added the comment that author name is missing.
Now if there is a LICENSE file in a directory, won't it apply to all
files in that directory? Or should I just add Copyright: NONE?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Chris Lamb 

> > This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is...
[…]

>   You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
>   [] [name of copyright owner]
>   license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
>   patent, trademark, and

But this is part of the license's documentation, not a statement about
the package itself.

-   APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.
-
-  To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
-  boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
-  replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include
-  the brackets!)  The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
-  comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
-  file or class name and description of purpose be included on the
-  same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
-  identification within third-party archives.
-
-   Copyright [] [name of copyright owner]
-
-   Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
-   you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
-   You may obtain a copy of the License at
-
-   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
-
-   Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
-   distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
-   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
-   See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
-   limitations under the License.

It is part of the "How to apply the Apache License to your work"
boilerplate...


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 02:08 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is...
> 
> Ignore this package for now: if I, totally by accident, mispasted a line
> into a debian/copyright file, the solution would be to remove such a line,
> no? Not rework the package so that the attribution became true.
> 

The output of licensecheck command,

licensecheck -l0 --deb-machine -r
packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/LICENSE
Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Name: FIXME
Upstream-Contact: FIXME
Source: FIXME
Disclaimer: Autogenerated by licensecheck

Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/LICENSE
Copyright: License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
  You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
  [] [name of copyright owner]
  license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
  patent, trademark, and
License: Apache-2.0
 FIXME

Which was not copy pasted as is, I thought about the problem and
modified those lines.

I did try to find the copyright notice from the upstream project but
that solution was not accepted either.  I did not mis-paste it by
accident. I manually added that comment that author name was missing
because it did not look normal to me.

I did not know not marking the presence of a LICENSE file in
debian/copyright was the preferred solution.

Are we not supposed to mark all copyright notices in debian/copyright?
How is Expat license applying to these code better than my original
copyright section which said these code are under Apache-2.0?

I knew there was a problem, it was not a mistake, it was a conscious
choice. The three choices I had was,

1. Add a comment that author name was missing, which was rejected
2. Try to find a the author name from project website, which was not
also considered a solution.
3. I removed that file altogether as it was not used currently, now that
was also not accepted.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Chris Lamb 

> > The obvious solution to me is to remove the accidental reference in
> > debian/copyright, not remove the file which contains some meta-copyright
> > message.
> 
> If this was suggested early on, we did not have to go through this long
> thread

This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is...

Ignore this package for now: if I, totally by accident, mispasted a line
into a debian/copyright file, the solution would be to remove such a line,
no? Not rework the package so that the attribution became true.


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 01:03 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Pirate,
> 
>> Now with those files removed from the source tarball, lets move on.
>> Please see if the current uploads in NEW meets the criteria.
> 
> Please try and refrain such emotionally-driven comments in future. I
> hope it is clear I attempted to be friendly and reset the frame of this
> discussion, but in my experience it rarely helps to lash out like this,
> especially when asking someone to do something for you.

I only intended to close this discussion and not meant to lash out at
you. Sorry if you found it offensive. My only intention was to not stall
every other package on this point. I only wanted to point out, I have
responded to your concern by uploading a fixed version.

>> I have suggested two possible solutions and you seem to be fixated on
>> the semantics of the problem than a solution.
> 
> I assure you I am not. Your solutions seemed to imply we were looking at
> a different problem altogether and were furthermore retrograde and/or
> detrimental to the packaging such as removing useful things such as tests,
> etc.

We are not running tests currently, so it does not affect the quality of
the package.

> The obvious solution to me is to remove the accidental reference in
> debian/copyright, not remove the file which contains some meta-copyright
> message.

If this was suggested early on, we did not have to go through this long
thread. I can add it back in future if we enable tests without the
section in copyright file.

Since the now removed directory has a LICENSE file different from the
rest of the code, it did not look obvious to me.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Chris Lamb 
Pirate,

> Now with those files removed from the source tarball, lets move on.
> Please see if the current uploads in NEW meets the criteria.

Please try and refrain such emotionally-driven comments in future. I
hope it is clear I attempted to be friendly and reset the frame of this
discussion, but in my experience it rarely helps to lash out like this,
especially when asking someone to do something for you.

> I have suggested two possible solutions and you seem to be fixated on
> the semantics of the problem than a solution.

I assure you I am not. Your solutions seemed to imply we were looking at
a different problem altogether and were furthermore retrograde and/or
detrimental to the packaging such as removing useful things such as tests,
etc.

The obvious solution to me is to remove the accidental reference in
debian/copyright, not remove the file which contains some meta-copyright
message.


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 12:31 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> No.
> 
> Pirate, please read over the following extremely carefully before replying
> as I would like to avoid either of us becoming frustrated by these repeated
> failures at conversation.
> 
> The situation, as I understand it, is as follows:
> 
> a) You uploaded 6.25.0+dfsg-13 with a debian/copyright including the
>following:
> 
>11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/*
>12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner]
>13 License: Apache-2.0
>14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing
> 
> b) This "[] [name of copyright owner]" placeholder text comes
>from the LICENSE file.
> 
> c) The portion of the LICENSE file where it comes from is part of
>the usual "How to apply this license to your own code." This is
>what was meant by "meta statement" in my original REJECT.
> 
> d) The statement in debian/copyright therefore has no meaning
>whatsover, likely just a false positive from whatever tool you
>are using to generate such files.
> 
> e) (It is therefore totally irrelevant to this disuss whether the
>tests are used, whether the package is "useful", whether its
>packages in NEW or contrib depend on it, etc. You seem fixated
>on this point.)

I have suggested two possible solutions and you seem to be fixated on
the semantics of the problem than a solution.

Now with those files removed from the source tarball, lets move on.
Please see if the current uploads in NEW meets the criteria.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-10 Thread Chris Lamb 
Hi,

> > Where it is used is not material here
> 
> There is a difference which missed to articulate in previous replies. If
> it is an optional component like only used for tests, we can just get
> rid of it without affecting the functionality.

No.

Pirate, please read over the following extremely carefully before replying
as I would like to avoid either of us becoming frustrated by these repeated
failures at conversation.

The situation, as I understand it, is as follows:

a) You uploaded 6.25.0+dfsg-13 with a debian/copyright including the
   following:

   11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/*
   12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner]
   13 License: Apache-2.0
   14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing

b) This "[] [name of copyright owner]" placeholder text comes
   from the LICENSE file.

c) The portion of the LICENSE file where it comes from is part of
   the usual "How to apply this license to your own code." This is
   what was meant by "meta statement" in my original REJECT.

d) The statement in debian/copyright therefore has no meaning
   whatsover, likely just a false positive from whatever tool you
   are using to generate such files.

e) (It is therefore totally irrelevant to this disuss whether the
   tests are used, whether the package is "useful", whether its
   packages in NEW or contrib depend on it, etc. You seem fixated
   on this point.)


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-09 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ഞായര്‍ 08 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something 
> fundamental. 

There is a difference which missed to articulate in previous replies. If
it is an optional component like only used for tests, we can just get
rid of it without affecting the functionality.

I have removed those file from orig tarball and reuploaded, please review.

Many packages currently in contrib and NEW benefits from it. Also many
packages currently being built with node-es6-module-transpiler (it is
hard to maintain and bug prone) can also benefit from having a modern
transpiler.

 reverse-depends -b node-es6-module-transpiler
Reverse-Build-Depends
=
* acorn
* node-es6-promise
* node-estree-walker
* node-magic-string
* node-rollup-plugin-commonjs
* node-rollup-plugin-json
* node-rollup-plugin-replace
* node-rollup-plugin-string
* node-rollup-pluginutils
* node-sourcemap-codec
* node-vlq




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-09 Thread Chris Lamb 


Hi Pirate Praveen,

We are talking different things. 

-Chris 

> On ഞായര്‍ 08 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 09:07 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I 
> > apply this license' not a copyright statement in itself..
> 
> We are in this situation because the License file does not include the
> name of copyright holder. I have added Google Inc as copyright holder
> (from the github project address that hosts traceur project) and
> re-uploaded. If that is also not okay, please suggest a solution that is
> acceptable.
> 
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
>   1k (application/pgp-signature)


-- 
Chris Lamb
chris-lamb.co.uk / @lolamby

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-09 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On തിങ്കള്‍ 09 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 12:48 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> We are talking different things. 

What do you suggest as a way forward?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-09 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ഞായര്‍ 08 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 09:07 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I apply 
> this license' not a copyright statement in itself..

We are in this situation because the License file does not include the
name of copyright holder. I have added Google Inc as copyright holder
(from the github project address that hosts traceur project) and
re-uploaded. If that is also not okay, please suggest a solution that is
acceptable.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-08 Thread Chris Lamb 


Hi Pirate Praveen,

Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something 
fundamental. 


> On ഞായര്‍ 08 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 08:30 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >  11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/*
> >  12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner]
> >  13 License: Apache-2.0
> >  14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing
> > 
> > Really? No it's not. This is a meta statement in a LICENSE text AFAICT. Are 
> > you
> > generating these lines automatically or something?
> 
> This is only used for tests, I could add copyright to google
> (https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler) or remove these files.
> 
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
>   1k (application/pgp-signature)


-- 
Chris Lamb
chris-lamb.co.uk / @lolamby

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-08 Thread Chris Lamb 


Hi Pirate Praveen,

Again, it makes no difference.. The text you quote is part of 'how do I apply 
this license' not a copyright statement in itself..


> On ഞായര്‍ 08 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Pirate Praveen,
> > 
> > Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something 
> > fundamental. 
> 
> I meant, these are not generated by me, its provided as fixtures, that
> is used during test.
> 
> I'm adding copyright to Google Inc as the traceur project is hosted at
> https://github.com/google/
> 
> Even this https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/blob/master/LICENSE
> has just the license text.
> 
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
>   1k (application/pgp-signature)


-- 
Chris Lamb
chris-lamb.co.uk / @lolamby

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-08 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ഞായര്‍ 08 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 08:54 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Pirate Praveen,
> 
> Where it is used is not material here unless I am missing something 
> fundamental. 

I meant, these are not generated by me, its provided as fixtures, that
is used during test.

I'm adding copyright to Google Inc as the traceur project is hosted at
https://github.com/google/

Even this https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/blob/master/LICENSE
has just the license text.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-08 Thread Pirate Praveen 
On ഞായര്‍ 08 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 08:30 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> 
> 
>  11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/*
>  12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner]
>  13 License: Apache-2.0
>  14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing
> 
> Really? No it's not. This is a meta statement in a LICENSE text AFAICT. Are 
> you
> generating these lines automatically or something?

This is only used for tests, I could add copyright to google
(https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler) or remove these files.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-13_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-10-08 Thread Chris Lamb 


 11 Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/*
 12 Copyright: [] [name of copyright owner]
 13 License: Apache-2.0
 14 Comment: name of copyright holder is missing

Really? No it's not. This is a meta statement in a LICENSE text AFAICT. Are you
generating these lines automatically or something?

 -- Chris Lamb   Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:17:26 +



===

Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
concerns.


-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel