[Pkg-tcltk-devel] naviserver_4.99.16-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Héctor Romojaro Gómez]

El mar, 25-09-2018 a las 15:03 +0000, Chris Lamb escribió:
> (forwarding reject notes)
> 
> REJECT
> 
> * links libssl but considers itself GPL, while the lintian error is
> overwriten
> * copyright file incorrect
>   - nsssl/* is also MPL+GPL, but listed as GPL, others as well.
> * not sure why there are pid and log file in the source
> (nsd/nsd.{log,pid})
> 
> naviserver:
> * /var/run/naviserver is created via tmpfiles.d as 0775, but 0755 in
> the init-script. please change to 0700 and use RuntimeDirectory in
> the systemd service
> * RPATH to /usr/lib is not a good idea, as this means a native lib in
> /usr/lib will be prefered to the correct one
> 
> naviserver-core:
> * unclear reason for split into naviserver and -core
> * provides name httpd, even if it does not include a server
> * no visible way to actually use this in other projects
> * no shlibs files, no abi definition
> 
> naviserver-dev:
> * marked as Multi-Arch: same, but includes /usr/include/naviserver
> that is arch dependent. 
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> 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.

Thanks for the in-depth review, i am currently looking into all the
issues.

Regarding the libssl linking, aside from the fact that nsssl/* was
incorrectly listed as only GPL in the copyright file, while being in
fact double licensed MPL+GPL, the lintian error was overwritten under
the assumption that, in the case of linking against libssl, MPL would
apply instead of GPL.

This is also the case in the old aolserver4-nsopenssl package, which
the nsssl naviserver module should replace.

So, in order to clarify, is this ok? Otherwise, i will check with
upstream if they could fix the license issue.

Cheers,
Héctor