Good morning David,
On 19.02.2017 03:59, David Rabel wrote:
> Hi Rolf,
>
> a general question: Are you OK with the way I commit every step in git
> or would you prefer that I clean up the history a little bit before pushing?
Whatever you think makes most sense. Your style looks absolutely fine
to me.
>> I am sure Osmo did not intend to release as public domain.
> What you actually say is: IF we leave it as it is, the worst case is
> that the software could be public domain.
No. The software has whatever license it has. We are just documenting
what that is. While doing this due diligence we might actually find out
that the license as stated is not what the author intended (a license
bug if that's how you want to look at it). Debian is doing this to
guarantee to its users that all software complies with DFSG and thus the
users do not have to do this work. Again, there really is no way around
this.
I am not sure that debian/copyright is currently complete, yet.
"licensecheck -r" lists quite a few files under LGPL license for example
and "rgrep -i copyright ." gives a lot more names than currently
documented. There's still work to be done here.
> We could drop the file, we just would have to run intltoolize before
> the build process. I was not quite sure how to do it.
It is already being done in line 18 of the current debian/rules file via
"--with autoreconf". So, at least for Debian it seems that file (and
possibly others) is not necessary and will be replaced during the build
anyhow.
dh-autoreconf is a superset of autotools-dev and thus I pushed an
untested fix to the rl-wip branch on github. Feel free to cherry-pick
after verification.
The Depends and Build-Depends lines look surprisingly long. Why do you
have so many explicit runtime dependencies in Depends? Isn't this
picked up automatically by ${misc:Depends} and ${shlibs:Depends}? If
necessary this can be fixed later, but it struck me as odd when I
stumbled upon it now.
Thanks again for your work.
Regards
Rolf
