Re: popt-1.16+sip1-1

On 2014-09-22 22:06, Victor wrote:
> Patrick ?P. J.? McDermott,
> Please review & advise. Thanks for all your time helping me so far too.

No problem, thanks for your contribution to ProteanOS!

This is great work for a first package.  Everything looks good except
for a few minor issues.

Remember to remove popt-1.16.back.tar.gz from the source package if you
haven't already.

The first line of the Description field of libpopt.0-doc is the same as
that of libpopt.0.  You should add " - documentation" or similar to it.

In your build makefile you have "rm -rf dest/usr/share/local".  That
path doesn't match anything; I guess you meant "locale" instead of
"local".  You might want to distribute those locale files though, in a
"libpopt.0-locales" package.  For reference, other source packages with
"-locales" binary packages are alsa-utils, binutils, gawk, gcc-4.7,
gettext, gmake, libexif, libgpg-error, and xz.

Looking at your copyright file, I see you've overestimated the
intelligence of licensecheck. :)  For a few files licensecheck reports
the copyright information as "1998-2002 Red Hat, Inc. -- Licensing
details are in the COPYING".  The part after "--" is the first line of
a full sentence, which you can simply omit:

    /* (C) 1998-2002 Red Hat, Inc. -- Licensing details are in the COPYING
       file accompanying popt source distributions, available from */

The second dumb thing licensecheck does with popt is in the test2.c
file.  It lists the copyright holders as "remains attached / 1999 US
Interactive, Inc".  The "remains attached" comes from this paragraph
after the copyright notice (licensecheck just looks for any "copyright"
or "(C)" strings in source files and thus reports many false positives,
including things like "putchar(c)" in C code):

        This program can be used under the GPL or LGPL at your
        whim as long as this Copyright remains attached.

So you can omit " / remains attached" from the copyright notices.  And
actually, that file is just a test program that isn't installed (clues
to this include the "test2.c" file name and the presence of a main()
function in the file).  The copyright file is meant to document the
copyright and licensing information for binary packages, so legal
notices for test programs need not be listed.  There's certainly no harm
in including such notices, but you can drop the US Interactive, Inc"
copyright notice entirely if you'd like.  (If you keep it, note that the
license of that file is a disjunction between the GNU GPL and LGPL, not
the same X11 license used by the rest of the popt package, so that file
would need its own license information.)

Another copyright notice you can omit from the copyright file is that of
Free Software Foundation, Inc.  This notice applies to, a
local copy of the GNU Libtool program, which, like test programs, isn't
distributed in the binary packages.  (If you keep this notice, note that also has a license different from the rest of popt.)

Patrick "P. J." McDermott
Lead Developer, ProteanOS