Reviews for lpac
All reviews for this package from team members (across all versions).
| Reviewer | Version | Allocated | Started | Status | Completed | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| awm | 2.3.0-1 | 2 months, 3 days ago | 2 months, 3 days ago | rejected | 2 months, 3 days ago | In REUSE.toml a variety of additional copyright holders are identified who should also be mentioned in debian/copyright. Another one is in driver/apdu/mbim.c The Lintian message about various files not having copyright information is because there is no "Files: *" stanza to handle the fallback case of who are the authors - if you added this stanza Lintian would then skip these files (though they are still regularly misidentified as being licensed under the terms of the license they descibe, which can be ignored, unless they're in a subdirectory on their own with some included source). The lintian message about possibly unindented list is that the package description needs a two-space indent for items in a list. Thanks! | View |
| awm | 2.3.0-1 | 2 months, 3 days ago | 2 months, 3 days ago | accepted | 2 months, 3 days ago | Hi, Accepted now, but something I missed in my earlier comments is your choice of naming for the licenses (probably upstream's choice really, but...) is non-standard. You use... Standard -----------------+---------- AGPL-v3.0-only | AGPL-3 LGPL-v2.1-only | LGPL-2.1 When a license is "-only" the standard (such as it is) is to omit that, and when it is GPL-2+ the standard is to add a "+", or more verbosely " or later". If you could fix this in your next upload, many automated license checking tools will be 0.00001% happier! Thanks! | View |