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

[Scott Kitterman]

"Ondřej Surý" <ondrej at debian.org> wrote:
>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?

No.  I wouldn't have rejected just for that.
>
>> 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

You're welcome.  Thanks for reuploading. I'll have another look at it.

Scott K