[DRE-maint] ruby-pygments.rb_0.5.0~git.20130605.84c69a1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Gergely Nagy]

Greetings,

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but upon reviewing your
packaging of ruby-pygments.rb, I came accross a few issues which will
need to be fixed one way or the other, before the software can enter
the archive. Please keep in mind, that the reason for rejection is a
combination of these issues, and not any of the issues alone.

The most serious issues I found is that the files under the vendor/
directory are not documented in debian/copyright at all, even worse,
the copyright file has Files: * in it, rendering it not only
incomplete, but invalid aswell.

In particular, vendor/custom_lexers/github.py is copyrighted by
GitHub, and is under a BSD license, pygments/ is copyrighted by
someone other than the one listed in debina/copyright, and the same
holds true for simplejson/ aswell.

Furthermore, test/test_data.c is copyrighted by Salvatore Sanfilippo,
and is under a 3-clause BSD license. The tests/test_data.py says its
part of gunicorn, and refers to the NOTICE file, which obviously does
not exist in pygments.rb.

The debian/copyright file must document the licenses used in the
source, even if parts of the upstream source are not used in the build
in any way. Merely documenting the main code that gets built, the
files that end up in the binary package is not enough.

But there were other issues aswell, namely a typo in the Homepage
field of the source package. I would also question the need to split
the documentation out into a separate package: the documentation is
only 127k uncompressed, which wouldn't make any difference compared to
the dependencies of the ruby-pygments.rb package.

Also, since the module is called 'pygments', shouldn't it be called
ruby-pygments instead? With the .rb suffix, there's ruby twice in the
package name, and as far as I see, there is no precedent for that in
the archive. I would suggest renaming it, unless there's a very good
reason not to.

I'm not entirely happy with the description either, but I can't offer
a better advice, either.

And that is all I found.

===

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.