Quoting Andrew McMillan (2026-02-23 12:02:46) > All good points! > > I use both licensecheck and cme (& licenserecon and custom search stuff > and ...). I know cme can be a bit opinionated about some things - > perhaps file a bug against it if you disagree with it's output? It can > be a very helpful tool, in spite of it's shortcomings
Good to know that you crosscheck with multiple tools. My concern was if you made the mistake of "ah, cme is based on licensecheck, so there is no benefit of scanning with licensecheck as well". You didn't. Cool! I have already discussed it with the author of cme, who considers it a design decision, not a flaw, so a bugreport will most likely just be considered a nuisance and immediately closed. But thanks for the suggestion - I am commonly too lazy to file bugreports, and it might be that (here, too) I needed a little nudging. > Regarding the ITP bug report, it is something I expect to do in due > course, but if I made the software perfect I'd not get to the reviews. > > The noreply thing is a bug I introduced today, and only just noticed > myself - it's bedtime now, but I'll try and fix it tomorrow. > > The review comments are of course recorded on the review on the > dashboard. I do consider these very minor points that are entirely > optional - or indeed things you might well disagree with. Given your > history with Debian, and the numbers of packages you've been involved > with, I expect you know considerably more about this stuff than I do. I do suggest that you make it explicit which comments are minor and which are not. Your role has the power to censor packages, and even an old confident fart like me get nervous about that, so I can only imagine the experience for less stubborn and loud-mouthed developers. Yes, the dashboard is a great help there. Thanks! Still, I suggest to keep in mind to mention explicitly when you simply wanna be kind and mention some details that is *not* affecting your grand ruling of "is-this-acceptable?". > And so: perhaps you can help! Do you think I should just send these > messages only to the ITP bug, or CC that along with the maintainers etc > that I currently send to? I think you should be noisy and send carbon copies. Maybe down the road if someone complains that you are too noisy, reconsider, but I'd say better too noisy than too silent - the latter is easier to miss feedback for. > We only get the choice, for the accepts (in many cases the accept has > no comment), and the notes that we occasionally send - the reject e- > mail is sent by the Archive Team, but I could also send an e-mail to > the ITP on a reject. If not too much work, and until others complain, I suggest to be noisy :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
