NewPackageRequirements

Differences between revisions 2 and 3
⇤ ← Revision 2 as of 2007-03-20 18:46:29 →
Size: 2200
Editor: 87
Comment: link to Debian FAQ
← Revision 3 as of 2007-03-28 18:58:36 → ⇥
Size: 2287
Editor: cpe-76-173-22-61
Comment: edits for clarity
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 7: Line 7:
=== Redistributability === === Copyright and Licensing ===
Line 11: Line 11:
 * The upstream tarball must contain verbatim copies of all licenses that are used by the files in the tarball. References to URLs or file paths (such as `/usr/share/common-licenses/`) are not sufficient.
 * For all files it must be clear under which license they fall. Code files should usually have a short comment at the top which points out the license.		  * The upstream tarball must contain verbatim copies of all licenses that are used by the files in the tarball. References to URLs or paths to system files (such as `/usr/share/common-licenses/`) are not sufficient.  The license(s) must accompany the source code.
 * For all files it must be clear under which license they fall. Source code files should usually have a short comment at the top which points out the license.
Line 14: Line 14:
 * `debian/copyright` must list all copyright holders and licenses (pointers to `/usr/share/common-licenses/` are ok), and the mapping of source tree parts to licenses.  * `debian/copyright` must list all copyright holders and licenses (pointers to `/usr/share/common-licenses/` are OK for licenses included there), and declare which licenses apply to which parts of the package.
Line 18: Line 18:
Depending on the severity of violations and your current mood it is acceptable to put the package into the archive and have the uploader fix it with followup uploads. ##Depending on the circumstances, some of these errors may not block the package from being ##accepted, and can be fixed with later uploads.

Requirements for new Ubuntu packages

When a source package is uploaded to Ubuntu which does not yet exist in the archive, or builds a new binary package, it will be held in the [http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/queue/feisty/new/ NEW queue] and has to be reviewed by an [https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive Ubuntu archive team] member.

Requirements of new source packages

These points are critical. Packages must not be accepted if any of these points is not fulfilled:

  • The upstream tarball must contain verbatim copies of all licenses that are used by the files in the tarball. References to URLs or paths to system files (such as /usr/share/common-licenses/) are not sufficient. The license(s) must accompany the source code.

  • For all files it must be clear under which license they fall. Source code files should usually have a short comment at the top which points out the license.

  • Files shipped under the GPL must be in the 'preferered form of modification' format. Negative examples are Flash animations (*.swf) or other binary files where no free editor (or even no editor at all) exists.

  • debian/copyright must list all copyright holders and licenses (pointers to /usr/share/common-licenses/ are OK for licenses included there), and declare which licenses apply to which parts of the package.

Packaging

  • The source and binary packages should have a sane name: neither they should clutter the namespace (such as "editor") nor should they have an entirely nonsensical name (such as "new-stuff-manager").

  • debian/control and debian/rules should build packages with the right Architecture:, Build-Depends[-Indep]:, and rules target (binary-arch vs. binary-indep).

  • Maintainer and init scripts should not excessively mess up the system.

Other

The [http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Debian NEW Reject FAQ] lists some important special cases which mostly apply to Ubuntu as well (except that we consider the GFDL as free enough).

Requirements of new binary packages

To be written

NewPackageRequirements (last edited 2008-08-06 16:18:31 by localhost)