FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Java

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-27-2010, 01:36 AM
Miguel Landaeta
 
Default RFS: cobertura

Hi mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cobertura".

* Package name : cobertura
Version : 1.9.3+dfsg-1
Upstream Author : Mark Doliner <thekingant@users.sourceforge.net>
* URL : http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/
* License : mostly GPL-2+ and Apache 1.1
Section : java

It builds these binary packages:
cobertura - java tool that calculates the percentage of code accessed by test
cobertura-doc - documentation for cobertura

The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 561177

My motivation for maintaining this package is:
It is needed as Dep/Build-Dep for some Java development frameworks
like grails, and plugins like cobertura-maven-plugin. Also this tool is useful
for test-driven development since combined with junit is capable of determine
which parts of code needs more testing.

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura/cobertura_1.9.3+dfsg-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Regards,

--
Miguel Landaeta, miguel at miguel.cc
secure email with PGP 0x7D8967E9 available at http://keyserver.pgp.com/
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." -- Nietzsche


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-27-2010, 05:06 PM
Onkar Shinde
 
Default RFS: cobertura

I have one question about this package. Is there any particular reason
why you created the package from scratch instead of basing it on the
cobertura package from Ubuntu?


Onkar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:16 AM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default RFS: cobertura

On Tue Jan 26 22:06, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura/cobertura_1.9.3+dfsg-1.dsc

Hi,

I've reviewed the package and have a few comments (some of which need changing,
others are a matter of style).

- any reason you're not using dh --with ant or --with javahelper and are doing
everything by hand?

- the API doc in cobertura-doc should still be located in /usr/share/doc/cobertura/api

- Is cobertura really providing a library? If so, would it be better to split
out a libcobertura-java package for things to depend on. If not, do you need
the API and to have the jar in /usr/share/java?

- is there any reason why you are depending on openjdk rather than
default-jdk? If not, you should depend on default-jdk. You should also
probably include the other virtual packages (java6-runtime etc)

- ditto, you should build-dep on default-jdk

- standards-version has just been changed to 3.8.4

- there are still files in etc/dtds/ with the copyright notice:

<!-- Portions (C) International Organization for Standardization 1986:^M
Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with^M conforming SGML
systems and applications as defined in^M ISO 8879, provided this notice is
included in all copies.^M

which it's not clear is DFSG-free (in particular it doesn't seem to provide
permission to distribute modified versions on derivative works)

- (biggest issue here): Apache 1.1 licenced code seems not to be linkable with
GPL-2+ licenced code:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and
you have both in cobertura. You should probably raise this with upstream and
see what they say.

- cobertura-doc suggests cobertura-java, but the other package is just cobertura

--
Matthew Johnson
 
Old 02-02-2010, 12:45 AM
Miguel Landaeta
 
Default RFS: cobertura

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,

Hi Matthew, thanks for reviewing this package.
Please see below my answers.

> *- any reason you're not using dh --with ant or --with javahelper and are doing
> *everything by hand?

Now I'm using javahelper. It simplified some tasks with packaging,
thanks for the
suggestion.

> *- the API doc in cobertura-doc should still be located in /usr/share/doc/cobertura/api

Done. The package was renamed to libcobertura-java-doc and the API doc is now
located at /usr/share/doc/libcobertura-java/api.

> *- Is cobertura really providing a library? If so, would it be better to split
> *out a libcobertura-java package for things to depend on. If not, do you need
> *the API and to have the jar in /usr/share/java?

Yes, it is providing a library. The package is already splitted.

> *- is there any reason why you are depending on openjdk rather than
> *default-jdk? If not, you should depend on default-jdk. You should also
> *probably include the other virtual packages (java6-runtime etc)
>
> *- ditto, you should build-dep on default-jdk

This was just laziness on my part. It is already fixed to depend on
the correct packages. cobertura source package now Build-Depend
on default-jdk-builddep and the binary packages Depend on
default-jre-headless | java2-runtime-headless | java2-runtime.

> *- standards-version has just been changed to 3.8.4

Done.

> *- there are still files in etc/dtds/ with the copyright notice:
>
> * *<!-- Portions (C) International Organization for Standardization 1986:^M
> * *Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with^M conforming SGML
> * *systems and applications as defined in^M ISO 8879, provided this notice is
> * *included in all copies.^M
>
> *which it's not clear is DFSG-free (in particular it doesn't seem to provide
> *permission to distribute modified versions on derivative works)

Done. Those files were removed from orig source since they are not needed
to build or use this package.

> *- (biggest issue here): Apache 1.1 licenced code seems not to be linkable with
> * GPL-2+ licenced code:
> * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and
> * you have both in cobertura. You should probably raise this with upstream and
> * see what they say.

Upstream clarify this in her website
(http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html ):

"The use of the Apache Software License in Cobertura is very straight forward.
Cobertura includes a set of ant tasks which can be used to call Cobertura. Ant
itself is licensed under the Apache Software License, Version 2.0. Because ant
tasks are loaded directly into the runtime of ant, and the GPL is incompatable
with all versions of the Apache Software License, ant tasks can not be licensed
under the GPL.

For this reason, the Cobertura ant tasks are licensed under the Apache Software
License, Version 1.1. And because these ant tasks are not GPL-compatable, but
the rest of Cobertura is GPL, when these ant tasks invoke Cobertura they must
do so by exec'ing a new JVM."

If this is not clear, what's the correct thing to do? Contact
upstream? debian-legal?

> *- cobertura-doc suggests cobertura-java, but the other package is just cobertura

Yes, fixed. It was a typo.

Thanks again for the review and the feedback.
I uploaded a new version of this package to mentors:

- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura/cobertura_1.9.3+dfsg-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Regards,

--
Miguel Landaeta, miguel at miguel.cc
secure email with PGP 0x7D8967E9 available at http://keyserver.pgp.com/
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." -- Nietzsche


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-02-2010, 01:35 AM
Charles Plessy
 
Default RFS: cobertura

Le Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:15:54PM -0430, Miguel Landaeta a écrit :
>
> Upstream clarify this in her website
> (http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html ):
>
> Because ant
> tasks are loaded directly into the runtime of ant, and the GPL is incompatable
> with all versions of the Apache Software License, ant tasks can not be licensed
> under the GPL.

Dear Miguel,

this information is outdated as the GPL version 3 is compatible with the Apache
License version 2.0, see: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-02-2010, 02:41 AM
Russ Allbery
 
Default RFS: cobertura

Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> Le Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:15:54PM -0430, Miguel Landaeta a écrit :

>> Upstream clarify this in her website
>> (http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html ):

>> Because ant tasks are loaded directly into the runtime of ant, and the
>> GPL is incompatable with all versions of the Apache Software License,
>> ant tasks can not be licensed under the GPL.

> this information is outdated as the GPL version 3 is compatible with the
> Apache License version 2.0, see:
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

I believe that FAQ explicitly supports the statement Miguel posts above.

Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because
the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works. However,
GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses are
incompatible in one direction only, and it is a result of ASF's
licensing philosophy and the GPLv3 authors' interpretation of
copyright law.

This licensing incompatibility applies *only* when some Apache project
software becomes a derivative work of some GPLv3 software, because
then the Apache software would have to be distributed under
GPLv3. This would be incompatible with ASF's requirement that all
Apache software must be distributed under the Apache License 2.0.

We avoid GPLv3 software because merely linking to it is considered by
the GPLv3 authors to create a derivative work. We want to honor their
license. Unless GPLv3 licensors relax this interpretation of their own
license regarding linking, our licensing philosophies are
fundamentally incompatible. This is an identical issue for both GPLv2
and GPLv3.

This is exactly the situation that Miguel is concerned about.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-02-2010, 07:49 AM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default RFS: cobertura

On Mon Feb 01 21:15, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> > *- is there any reason why you are depending on openjdk rather than
> > *default-jdk? If not, you should depend on default-jdk. You should also
> > *probably include the other virtual packages (java6-runtime etc)
> >
> > *- ditto, you should build-dep on default-jdk
>
> This was just laziness on my part. It is already fixed to depend on
> the correct packages. cobertura source package now Build-Depend
> on default-jdk-builddep and the binary packages Depend on
> default-jre-headless | java2-runtime-headless | java2-runtime.

(haven't looked at the package yet, but)

you should build-dep on default-jdk, not default-jdk-builddep (it's very badly
named, I plan to get this fixed), and you should also include
java5-runtime-headless and java6-.... in the alternates list.

> > *- (biggest issue here): Apache 1.1 licenced code seems not to be linkable with
> > * GPL-2+ licenced code:
> > * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and
> > * you have both in cobertura. You should probably raise this with upstream and
> > * see what they say.
>
> Upstream clarify this in her website
> (http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html ):
>
> "The use of the Apache Software License in Cobertura is very straight forward.
> Cobertura includes a set of ant tasks which can be used to call Cobertura. Ant
> itself is licensed under the Apache Software License, Version 2.0. Because ant
> tasks are loaded directly into the runtime of ant, and the GPL is incompatable
> with all versions of the Apache Software License, ant tasks can not be licensed
> under the GPL.
>
> For this reason, the Cobertura ant tasks are licensed under the Apache Software
> License, Version 1.1. And because these ant tasks are not GPL-compatable, but
> the rest of Cobertura is GPL, when these ant tasks invoke Cobertura they must
> do so by exec'ing a new JVM."
>
> If this is not clear, what's the correct thing to do? Contact
> upstream? debian-legal?

Ah, thank you, yes, this is perfectly correct, you should paste that into
debian/copyright so everyone knows what is going on (particularly the FTP
masters when they do the same review in the NEW queue)

Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
 
Old 02-02-2010, 07:52 AM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default RFS: cobertura

On Tue Feb 02 11:35, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear Miguel,
>
> this information is outdated as the GPL version 3 is compatible with the Apache
> License version 2.0, see: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

Yes, but the files in question are licenced under Apache 1.1, so this does not help.

Matt

--
Matthew Johnson
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org