[resending with reply-all] On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 at 23:45, Peter Blackman <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, but do you have an example of a real package where this is considered > an issue? > > ISTM that if it is considered desirable to exclude a whole directory tree > from license checking, > that something must be seriously wrong, > either with licensecheck or the copyright file itself. > The real package we have issues with is https://github.com/taiki-e/pin-project which uses SPDX identifiers in all its files. licensecheck fails to identify the license of all those files correctly, it gives "Apache-2.0" instead of "Apache-2.0 or MIT". I believe that's a known issue and is tracked in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=960665 The consequences are manageable though, we just have to add all the directories from that package which contain source files to lrc.config. There are not that many, so I'm fine with the solution to fix the comment instead of implementing the feature. Cheers, Adrian On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 at 23:45, Peter Blackman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/02/2026 01:09, Adrian Dombeck wrote: > > Package: licenserecon > > Version: 11.0 > > Severity: normal > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > According to the comment in /usr/share/lrc/lrc.config: > > > > > # Directories identified by trailing slash / > > > # Entire contents will be (recursively) excluded. > > > debian/patches/ > > > > directories listed in debian/lrc.config should be excluded recursively. > > No. Recursive exclusion was deemed too aggressive and was withdrawn, > but I overlooked changing the comment! > > I'll close this bug by fixing that comment. > > > > In practice, only files directly in the listed directory are excluded, > files in subdirectories are not. > > > > Here is a minimal example to reproduce the issue: > > OK, but do you have an example of a real package where this is considered > an issue? > > ISTM that if it is considered desirable to exclude a whole directory tree > from license checking, > that something must be seriously wrong, > either with licensecheck or the copyright file itself. > > > Cheers, > Peter > > P.S. > Maybe you could use a license alias here? > > >
