Package: lintian Version: 2.5.10.2 Severity: wishlist "love" gives some lintian warnings, because of the following paragraph in its copyright file:
------------------------------------------------------------------ Comment: Warning: CPL is NOT compatible with GNU's General Public License, but that isn't be a problem in this case, because LÖVE doesn't use anything covered by that license. . List of libraries and tools used by LÖVE: * Lua (MIT) * OpenGL * SDL (LGPL) * SDL_mixer (LGPL) * FreeType 2 (FTL) * DevIL (LGPL) * PhysFS (ZLIB) * Box2D (ZLIB) * boost (BSL) * SWIG (BSD) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lintian says: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-lgpl I could refer to it, which I think is not really useful in this case (there's no reason to include (a link to) the license text in this case), but even if I would, it wouldn't solve the problem: then it complains that I shouldn't use an unversioned reference to it. It makes even less sense to add a versioned reference. Lintian should only emit this warning if the license is actually used by the package, which means there must be a ^License: LGPL.*$ (and similar for other shared-licenses) line, not just any occurrence of the license name. This is true for DEP-5 files, anyway. If a non-DEP-5 file needs to get this fixed, converting them to DEP-5 should be the answer. That only works if lintian doesn't complain in cases like this one. :-) So my suggestion is: make this test only trigger for License lines in case of DEP-5 files, and add a notice about this in the explanation. Thanks, Bas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature