Skip to content

Review request: python-ihm

Review for package python-ihm

Link to the pipeline run: https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/python-ihm/-/pipelines ?

The license check raises an alarm that I consider to be a false positive. Upstream describes the license as MIT, while e use Expat for it. But I prefer reusing the naming that upstream gives.

Also, there is another file that goes for some CC-BY 4.0 license but it is different - so I copied the license info presented in those files and reused the abbreviations that upstream used.

Essential references:

The package uses debhelper and is lintian-clean

This checklist assumes the above to ensure that some points of the Policy such as rules on when copyright files can be symbolic links, etc., are respected. If for some reason you accept to reveiw a package that can not use these tools, read again Policy 12.5 very carefully and check all the points manually.

The debian/copyright file contains:

  • A statement where the upstream sources were obtained (Policy 12.5§3).
  • [X] A name or contact address (email, forum, bugtracker, …) for the upstream authors (individuals or organisations) (Policy 12.5§3). It is in d/u/metadata - will add this now, do not like it, though. [Edit: Done]
  • The names of all copyright holders.
    • the copyright-grep CI test can help you for text files.
    • the file-types CI test can help you finding binary files that may contain copyright statements, such as images, PDFs, etc..
  • Year information for the copyright statements (Jaspert-2006).
  • A license statement for the packaging work in debian/ (Jaspert-2006).
  • No extra information that belong to README files (Policy 12.5§8).
  • A verbatim copy of the licenses (Policy 2.3§1, 12.5§1), with the following exception:
Edited by Steffen Möller