[DRE-maint] liboauth-ruby: initial upload for review

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 02/03/10 at 06:31 +0200, Will Daniels wrote:
> > You might want to add a comment following DEP4 for
> > debian/patches/repack-deprecate-rubygems. Even if the patch is very
> > simple, it's still a good practice.
> >
> >   
> I have added now a header note on the quilt patch and a comment in the
> patched files, but I don't think I understand what you mean by "DEP4".
> Is this a reference to the Debian Enhancement Proposal for tdebs or have
> I misunderstood? :D

Sorry, I meant DEP3. http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/

> > Unfortunately, it seems that we often lack packages for some of the
> > libraries required to run ruby tests.
> >
> >   
> We have the necessary libraries to run them, but I don't know if there
> is a special target in the build rules for running tests (I've never
> encountered such myself) or if you tend to distribute them in the
> package (and if so, which package)?

if the tests can be used as examples, it might be a good idea to include
them, for example in a -doc package.

> >> 3. The upstream sources include scripts to generate the lib's homepage
> >> on rubyforge. I did not think it of value to attempt to package this for
> >> docs or anything else. For starters, it begins with instructions to
> >> "sudo gem install oauth" etc.
> >>     
> >
> > That's probably fine. Is there any reason to believe that the copyright
> > would be different here?
> 
> I don't see any specific or alternative attribution of authorship,
> copyright or license for the website files, so presumably they just fall
> under the main copyright and license? The MIT license is actually stated
> in the HTML content of the index file itself, applying to "this code",
> so I would expect that implies the inclusion of itself sufficiently?
> 
> There is a javascript with an additional copyright there (and a
> different license - LGPL) but I cannot see anything that is incompatible
> with DFSG to hold in the orig source archive, and if these website files
> are not distributed in the binary packages then do we still need to list
> it in copyright?

All licences for files included in the source tarball must be mentioned
in debian/copyright (and be free, of course).

Debian also distributes the source tarball, so it could also be sued if
only the source tarball contains non-free files.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas at nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |