Also, at the completion of 'dh-make-perl', an information message in
the copyright file indicates: 'License: unparsable',
Does 'dh-make-perl' look for licence by name or text, and ergo would this constitute a reason bug to log that the licence was not recognised?
Updated copyright file:
- copyright only yielded one year 2007
- add missing 'inc/Module' copyright
- add BSD-3-Clause based on content of LICENSE file
- set the 'debian/*' as BSD-3-Clause rather than Artistic, and retained Artistic licence clause for the 'inc/Module'
Questions:
1. Given only one year being found, do I need to email the developer to obtain more information on copyright years, or leave as 2007,
or include
the Berne Convention?
2. The LICENSE file contained the BSD-3-Clause licence without explicitly stating it, and the README indicated BSD, with an online search confirming the actual licence text included matched.
Does this suffice, or do I need to advise the developer to include the licence name in the licence file?
Also, at the completion of 'dh-make-perl', an information message in the copyright file indicates: 'License: unparsable',
Does 'dh-make-perl' look for licence by name or text, and ergo would this constitute a reason bug to log that the licence was not recognised?
3, The original source does not contain any 'META.[json|yml] files, which
was reported as an error during the 'dh-make-perl' execution.
Are these files mandatory?
4. Did I miss anything?
add "libtest-exception-perl <!nocheck>" to Build-Depends-Indep
add "libclass-data-inheritable-perl <!nocheck>" to Build-Depends-Indepand "libclass-data-inheritable-perl" to Depends
that's in debian/control and easily fixed
Quoting Ken Ibbotson (2020-10-24 03:47:31)
Also, at the completion of 'dh-make-perl', an information message in
the copyright file indicates: 'License: unparsable',
Does 'dh-make-perl' look for licence by name or text, and ergo would this constitute a reason bug to log that the licence was not recognised?
Speaking as author of the licensecheck tool, I would find it helpful to
have a bugreport filed against licensecheck for licensing statements unrecognized by that tool.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 12:17:31 +1030, Ken Ibbotson wrote:
Updated copyright file:
- copyright only yielded one year 2007
- add missing 'inc/Module' copyright
- add BSD-3-Clause based on content of LICENSE file
- set the 'debian/*' as BSD-3-Clause rather than Artistic, and retained Artistic licence clause for the 'inc/Module'
Questions:
1. Given only one year being found, do I need to email the developer to obtain more information on copyright years, or leave as 2007,
If upstream says "2007", we can just take this year.
or include
the Berne Convention?
The "Berne Convention assumption" is for the cases where there is an
author but no explicit copyright holder, which is not the case here.
2. The LICENSE file contained the BSD-3-Clause licence without explicitly stating it, and the README indicated BSD, with an online searchconfirming
the actual licence text included matched.
Does this suffice, or do I need to advise the developer to include the licence name in the licence file?
I think that's fine as-is, both for upstream (they state clear license terms), and for us (we name it "BSD-3-Clause" just to have a
convenient short name).
Also, at the completion of 'dh-make-perl', an information message in the copyright file indicates: 'License: unparsable',
Does 'dh-make-perl' look for licence by name or text, and ergo would this constitute a reason bug to log that the licence was not recognised?
It tries all kinds of things :)
And that usually works but fails in the rare corner case.
3, The original source does not contain any 'META.[json|yml] files, which was reported as an error during the 'dh-make-perl' execution.
Are these files mandatory?
No, their absence is just a sign of a distribution which doesn't use
typical modern tools.
4. Did I miss anything?
Just some nit-picking observations:
- d/rules has a trailing \t
- d/copyright:
* as per the above notes, '-<INSERT COPYRIGHT YEAR(S) HERE>' can be
removed
* the upstream email address could be de-mangled (in two spots)
* you use "License: BSD-3-Clause" as a license for "debian/*";
that's fine if this is your preference; typically we use upstream
license + perl license, i.e. ""License: BSD-3-Clause or Artistic or GPL-1+"
- d/control: you can add "Rules-Requires-Root: no" to the source
section
Less ideal is that the package doesn't build in a cowbuilder chroot:
Can't locate Test/Exception.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Test::Exception module) (@INC contains: t/lib /build/libtest-fitesque-perl-0.04/inc /build/libtest-fitesque-perl-0.04/blib/lib /build/libtest-fitesque-perl-0.04/blib/arch /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl/5.30.3 /usr/local/share/perl/5.30.3 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl5/5.30 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl-base /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl/5.30 /usr/share/perl/5.30 /usr/local/lib/site_perl) at t/01-fixture.t line 8.
add "libtest-exception-perl <!nocheck>" to Build-Depends-Indep
Then it still fails with:
# Failed test 'use Test::FITesque::Fixture;'
# at t/01-fixture.t line 10.
# Tried to use 'Test::FITesque::Fixture'.
# Error: Base class package "Class::Data::Inheritable" is empty.
# (Perhaps you need to 'use' the module which defines that package
first,
# or make that module available in @INC (@INC contains: t/lib /build/libtest-fitesque-perl-0.04/inc /build/libtest-fitesque-perl-0.04/blib/lib /build/libtest-fitesque-perl-0.04/blib/arch /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl/5.30.3 /usr/local/share/perl/5.30.3 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl5/5.30 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl-base /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl/5.30 /usr/share/perl/5.30 /usr/local/lib/site_perl).
# at /build/libtest-fitesque-perl-0.04/blib/lib/Test/FITesque/Fixture.pm line 7.
# BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /build/libtest-fitesque-perl-0.04/blib/lib/Test/FITesque/Fixture.pm line 7.
# Compilation failed in require at t/01-fixture.t line 10.
# BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t/01-fixture.t line 10.
add "libclass-data-inheritable-perl <!nocheck>" to Build-Depends-Indepand "libclass-data-inheritable-perl" to Depends
(both can be found in Makefile.PL but as that's a Module::Install
wrapper, dh-make-perl fails at parsing, and there's no
META.{yml,json} either, as we already noted :))
lintian has some remarks, e.g.:
I: libtest-fitesque-perl: spelling-error-in-description unnessecary unnecessary
that's in debian/control and easily fixed
I: libtest-fitesque-perl: typo-in-manual-page usr/share/man/man3/Test::FITesque.3pm.gz compatability compatibility
and some others
optionally create a patch to fix all the typos and send it
upstream
W: libtest-fitesque-perl source: team/pkg-perl/testsuite/autopkgtest-needs-use-name
pkg-perl-autopkgtest's use.t wants to know the name of the (main)
module, and again, we have no META.{yml,json} :) so:
% mkdir -p debian/tests/pkg-perl
% echo Test::FITesque > debian/tests/pkg-perl/use-name
As a summary: you happened to pick a rare cornercase of an a-typical distribution here, usually it's much quicker to create a new package :)
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
: :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
`. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Cat Power: Could We
Had a chance to revisit this package, and the new run against the
licence file worked correctly.
licensecheck ./LICENSE
./LICENSE: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
So I will not be raising a bug at this time.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 86:13:27 |
Calls: | 6,496 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,099 |
Messages: | 5,277,030 |