On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 17:30:02 -0500 Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 07:13:12AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that the dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique tag should either:
- reduce its severity, as just an advice for readability, or
- only be
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 07:13:12AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that the dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique tag should either:
- reduce its severity, as just an advice for readability, or
- only be issued when the same short name is used with a different
description.
Have to
I found this bugreport while tracking down this lintian complaint. I'm
not sure the warning is useful. Just consider the examples inside
DEP5 itself. As far as I understand, those wouldn't be compliant with
this check -- example 3 and 4 have multiple 'License: GPL-2+' statements
with different
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
I think that the dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique tag should either:
- reduce its severity, as just an advice for readability, or
- only be issued when the same short name is used with a different
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.30+deb8u3
Severity: normal
Dear Lintian maintainers,
thank you for your support of the machine-readable copyright format.
Regarding the tag dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique, I
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.30+deb8u3
Severity: normal
Dear Lintian maintainers,
thank you for your support of the machine-readable copyright format.
Regarding the tag dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique, I think that it
is either too strict or too severe.
The specification does not
6 matches
Mail list logo
