Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: > Quoting Simon Josefsson (2024-04-18 09:34:26) >> Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: >> >> > That said, you are welcome to try nudge me if some concrete task >> > emerges where you image I might be of help. >> >> Thanks -- I'm moving this out of 921954@bugs and cc'ing debian-devel to >> allow others to help and to allow you from not having to feel a need to >> reply at all :) > > Thanks for releaving me. > > ...but then you bring up licensing, which has my special interest :-D
I am terribly sorry :-) >> One of the things that bothered me with the gnulib Debian package that >> I've been too afraid to touch is the debian/copyright file. It triggers >> a lot of lintian errors: >> >> https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?packages=gnulib >> >> For reference here is current debian/copyright: >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gnulib/-/blob/debian/sid/debian/copyright >> >> I've seen debian/clscan/ and ran the tools there, but I don't yet feel >> comfortable patching things, and it didn't produce clean results even >> for the last version in testing before I started to work on this >> package, so I'm not convinced this toolchain is the best approach going >> forward. > > When I took over maintenance my first thought was also to get rid of the > clscan script, but then I realized how enormous a work it would be to > approach it differently and wrapped my head around the script and > adjusted it. > > Does it sound like you are in a similar situation now as I was, or is > there something in particular that makes you consider abandoning > clscan? Yes you are right. There is nothing in particular that I've found, except that I don't understand how it is supposed to work and I felt uncertain if it was worth wrapping my head around or not. >> One problem is that lintian doesn't like [REF01] in lines like this: >> >> License: FSFAP [REF01] > > I agree with lintian about the above (but we disagree on other things - > see bug#786450). I am confident that the above syntax is incorrect: > copyright format 1.0 requires a single-word shortname. That is good to establish, and I wasn't even certain of that. Then it is clear that it is the gnulib debian/copyright file that should change. And the discussion can move to what it should change into. > If you are simply not fluent in perl, then perhaps reach out to the > Debian perl team for help? Or perhaps look in the git history the tweaks > that I made - perhaps those are of inspiration to whatever issue you are > running into now? I will try to do that -- and will experiment with it to see if I get an improved copyright file out of it, maybe using a Comment: approach instead of the invalid [REF01] approach. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
