onetbb_2021.4.0-1~exp1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[M. Zhou]

Hi,

Thanks a lot to Scott for the review! 
@Andreas: Thanks, please go ahead. Ping me if it FTBFS or any patch
needs a rebase.

On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 17:22 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> Am Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:00:08PM +0000 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > 
> > Normally for a package already in Debian I wouldn't reject due to
> > copyright/
> > license documentation, but I am making an exception is this case. 
> > I only
> > started to look at this package by doing grep -ir copyright * over
> > the source.
> > I made redirected the output of that to a file and made a list of
> > all the
> > copyright notices that are not currently reflected in
> > debian/copyright.  It
> > has 806 lines.
> > 
> > It looks clear to me that either the package has been completely
> > reworked by
> > upstream and the maintainer didn't check or it's been years (looks
> > like five)
> > since anyone looked at debian/copyright.
> > 
> > Please fix and reupload.  This package needs a comprehensive review
> > of
> > copyright and licensing and the documentation of the results in
> > debian/
> > copyright per policy.
> 
> Thanks a lot for your review.  I think I've fixed d/copyright in
> Git[1].
> 
> @Mo: I had trouble with pristine-tar to extract the source tarball of
> version 2021.4.0-1 which you uploaded.  Since there is a new upstream
> version meanwhile I'm currently building 2021.5.0-1 with the
> intention
> to upload it to experimental via NEW.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>        Andreas.
> 
> [1]
> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/tbb/-/blob/master/debian/copyright
>