[DRE-maint] rails-4.0_4.0.0~rc1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Ondřej Surý]

Some comments below:

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Scott Kitterman <
ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, the rails-4.0 is not in a condition to be accepted in the
> Debian
> archive at the moment.  In my review, I found a number of issues major and
> minor that should be corrected.  Some of these may exist in the existing
> rails
> package, I did not check.  If so, these are bugs in the package.
>
> There is no need to ship debian/patches/series as an empty file in format
> 3.0
> (quilt).  It will be created if needed.
>

That is surely not a reason while to reject package, right?


> All of the Conflicts/Replaces relationships in debia/control should be
> Breaks/Replaces.
>

Mostly done with the exception of virtual packages.


> There is at least one case of an extra copy of the MIT license file being
> installed.  These should be removed.
>
> usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/rails/generators/rails/plugin_new/templates/MIT-LICENSE
>

Nope, the license file is there for templating new projects and has it's
place there.


> actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/journey/parser.rb is a generated file.  It
> looks
> like the source needed to regenerate it during build (parser.y) is there,
> but
> the package build does not do this.  The generated file is not the
> preferred
> form of modification, so in Debian we need to ensure the identical file
> can be
> generated.  The best way to do this is to regenerate it during package
> build. In
> some cases, it's OK to just manually verify things can be rebuilt and not
> do it
> during the build, but only if there is a substantial barrier to actually
> rebuilding it.  That's unlikely to be the case here.
>

Regenerating parser.rb with racc now.


> Although there is not confusion about the intended license, it is better
> for the
> license header to be put in each file rather than just a copy of the
> license in
> each top level directory (there are some files that do have this). (not a
> reject
> issue, but something you might discuss with upstream)
>
> Files copyright David Heinemeier Hansson are Copyright (c) 2004-2013 David
> Heinemeier Hansson and not just 2004.
>

Fixed.


> The following files are Copyright (c) 2006 Assaf Arkin (
> http://labnotes.org) and
> under MIT and/or CC By license:
> actionpack/test/controller/selector_test.rb
> actionpack/test/controller/assert_select_test.rb
> actionpack/lib/action_view/vendor/html-scanner/html/selector.rb
> actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/testing/assertions/selector.rb
> Needs to be documented in debian/copyright.
>

Fixed.


> This icons in guides/assets/images/icons (as indicated in the README) were
> done
> by Stuart Rackham based on work by Jakub Steiner that appears to be © Jakub
> Steiner, © Novell, Inc.  As indicated on the referenced web page, these are
> probably licensed GPL v2, but it's not clear and not documented in debian/
> copyright regardless.  License needs to be clarified and documented.
>


> guides/assets/javascripts/syntaxhighlighter/shBrushCpp.js is also
> Copyright 2006
> Shin, YoungJin.  The additional copyright holder needs to be documented.
>

Removed full guides/ directory from +dfsg repacked, since it's just
documentation available on the web. It might get repackaged in the future
when we clear the licensing of all files.


> The following jpegs have no clear license and are copyright of other
> parties.
> Their license needs to be clarified and (if free) documented in
> debian/copyright.  Otherwise they need to be removed from the package:
> actionpack/test/fixtures/multipart/mona_lisa.jpg is Copyright 1995 Nicolas
> Piochÿ with no license information.
>

Removed. It's licensed under PD-Art (from wikimedia).


> guides/assets/images/jaimeiniesta.jpg says Copyright 2006, but no
> indication of
> who the copyright holder is.
>
> guides/assets/images/vijaydev.jpg is Copyright 2007 Apple Inc., all rights
> reserved.
>
> guides/assets/images/rails_guides_kindle_cover.jpg is Copyright 2007 Apple
> Inc.,
> all rights reserved
>

If you look at the contents of the files it's quite clear that the Apple
Inc. copyright is some boilerplate from software that generated the
picture. I am quite sure that the guides/ author's picture is not
copyrighted by Apple.

Same with the other author's picture. But I guess it needs clarification
from them.


> Please address these issues and reupload.
>

Done.

Thanks for the review,
Ondrej


> Scott K
>
>
> ===
>
> 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.
>
>


-- 
Ondřej Surý <ondrej at sury.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20130719/72765217/attachment.html>