[DRE-maint] libnet-tftp-ruby review

[Deepak Tripathi]

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/01/08 at 18:24 +0000, deepak-guest at alioth.debian.org wrote:
>   
>> Author: deepak-guest
>> Date: 2008-01-19 18:24:33 +0000 (Sat, 19 Jan 2008)
>> New Revision: 2455
>>
>> Modified:
>>    packages-wip/libnet-tftp-ruby/trunk/debian/control
>>    packages-wip/libnet-tftp-ruby/trunk/debian/copyright
>> Log:
>> change debian/control and debian/copyright
>>     
>
> OK, let's see:
>
>   
>> 17:01 < lucas> could you please search for a page giving advices on how to write descriptions?
>> 17:02 < lucas> I think that starting a description with "This is" is wrong
>> 17:02 < lucas> but not 100% sure
>> 17:02 < lucas> You description says what TFTP is. but doesn't say that this lib allows to write tftp apps
>> 17:02 < lucas> does it allow to write both client and server apps?
>> 17:03 < deepak> yes
>> 17:03 < lucas> is it RFC compliant?
>> 17:03 < lucas> there are some extensions RFC for TFTP. Does it support it?
>> 17:03 < lucas> etc
>> 17:03 < deepak> no
>> 17:03 < lucas> try to improve your description
>> 17:03 < deepak> ok
>>     
>
> NOT FIXED.
>
>   
Fixed
>> 17:03 < lucas> Homepage: should go to the Source stanza
>>     
>
> NOT FIXED.
>
>   
Fixed
>> 17:03 < lucas> just below Standards-version
>> 17:04 < lucas> Standard-version need to be upgraded to 3.7.3 (after checking that it's fine)
>>     
>
> OK.
>
>   
>> 17:04 < lucas> You miss the Vcs-* URLs (put them for the "final" place of the package (in /packages/, not in /packages-wip/)
>>     
>
> NOT FIXED.
>
>   
Fixed
>> 17:04 < lucas> please depend on libruby1.8 and libruby1.9 instead of ruby1.8 and ruby1.9
>> 17:05 < lucas> (that's jsut so it's the same as other packages)
>>     
>
> NOT FIXED.
>   
Fixed

>   
>> 17:05 < lucas> libnet-tftp-ruby is probably not Arch: any, but Arch: all
>>     
>
> NOT FIXED.
>
>   
Fixed
>> 17:05 < deepak> ok
>> 17:06 < lucas> debian/copyright looks ... strange. is it GPLed or not?
>> 17:06 < deepak> its GPLed
>> 17:06 < lucas> the License: part should be copy/pasted from the source. Then, you should have another paragraph saying where the GPL is
>> 17:06 < lucas> then what are those other conditions?
>>     
>
> NOT FIXED.
>
>   
Fixed
>> 17:07 < lucas> why is shebang.patch.dpatch necessary?
>> 17:08 < deepak> its there 4th line of License : part
>> 17:08 < deepak> bcz in main sources it wan #!  /usr/bin/ruby (space after #!)
>> 17:09 < deepak> so i changed #!/usr/bin/ruby 
>> 17:09 < deepak> thats y its required .
>> 17:09 < lucas> I think that both syntaxes are allowed, no?
>>     
>
> NOT FIXED.
>
>   
Fixed
>> 17:10 < lucas> copyright: please check if the second license is the ruby license. if then, say so. (but be careful, it has to be EXACTLY the ruby license)
>> 17:10 < deepak> #!   /usr/bin/ruby work if ruby is in default path
>> 17:11 < deepak> any way
>> 17:11 < deepak> i will check the license
>> 17:11 < lucas> please double-check that libnet-tftp-ruby1.{8,9} is really arch:any. I'm not sure that's true.
>> 17:12 < deepak> i will cehck both
>> 17:12 < deepak> s/cehck/check/
>> 17:14 < lucas> it would be great if you could write a short example (like the one on top of lib/net/tftp.rb) and ship it.
>>     
>
> NOT FIXED.
>
>   
Its available in tftp.rb so should  i need to create a file or something 
else.
>> 17:14 < lucas> it really lacks documentation
>> 17:14 < deepak> yes you are right
>> 17:15 < lucas> the licensing part sucks. it's quite clear that it's dual licensed GPL + ruby
>> 17:15 < lucas> but the author forgot to say which version of GPL applies (2, 3, 2 or later)
>> 17:16 < lucas> the GPL.txt file is version 2, but that doesn't mean much
>> 17:16 < deepak> i have checked the source code its GPL .if  you will see LICENSE.txt and README.txt in upstream sources it says its GPL and they have put one GPL.txt
>> 17:16 < lucas> basically, your goal is to describe the situation as best as possible. If it's unclear, the ftpmasters will reject the upload
>> 17:16 < deepak> and yes its GPL 2
>> 17:16 < lucas> also, don't forget to mention that setup.rb is LGPL
>> 17:17 < lucas> since it's included in the source, it has to be mentioned
>>     
>
> OK.
>
>   
>> 17:17 < deepak> ok
>> 17:17 < deepak> ok
>>     
>
> So, clearly not ready.
>   
Now check it. i think its complete now.