Comment 2 for bug 2045816

Unofficial review, here's some things I noticed:

1: debian/copyright: "License: GPL" should be "License: GPL-2+". "GPL" all by itself is more permissive than "GPL-2+". [1] While that ambiguity is cleared up in the actual license reference, the file is supposed to be machine readable, and this could cause the license to be misidentified by an automated tool.

2: debian/copyright: You should probably add yourself to the Debian stanza of the copyright file.

3: Lintian is showing me "W: project-x: bad-jar-name [usr/share/java/ProjectX.jar]". See https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/ch02.html#policy-libraries. Please investigate this. (You can lintian-override this if it turns out to not be an issue.) (edit: just realized this is a native Ubuntu package, not a Debian one)

4: Some documentation under /usr/share/doc/project-x/htmls isn't registered with doc-base, causing the Lintian tag "possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration" to show up. Probably not a blocker, but might be worth considering fixing. See https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#registering-documents-using-doc-base

5: debian/control: It would be best if you could add "Rules-Requires-Root: no" to the end of the source package stanza. Also not a blocker, but it would silence a pedantic Lintian gripe.

A couple of very picky nitpicks:

1: debian/copyright: This is purely my own personal opinion, but "Portions" is a slightly confusing name for a custom license. You might consider using a name like "Custom-Permissive" or something along those lines instead, as that's slightly more descriptive. (This is not a big deal, you can ignore me here if you want.)

2: There's no upstream metadata file. This also can be left out entirely, the Lintian tag that informed me of it is experimental and can be ignored without issues. I just usually write one when I'm packaging.

Again, this is unofficial, I do not have the needed access rights to sponsor this. I'm just looking at it and gaining experience doing reviews since I hope to eventually gain those access rights.

[1]: According to the GNU General Public License (versions 1, 2, and 3), "GPL" all by itself means that any version of the GPL (including the virtually unused GPLv1!) can be used.