On Wednesday 18 November 2015 21:08:04 Nicholas Bamber wrote: > 1.) Your thoughts on #472199? My reading of the bug report is you have > no interest in this as you provide the functionality in cme. On the > other hand I'd quite like something in this direction as this would > remove the need to map between the legacy licensecheck format and DEP-5 > format.
It would be relatively easy to modify licensecheck to output DEP-5 format instead of the current format. But who would want a dep-5 file with one paragraph per scanned file ? That would create huge output for big packages. > 2.) I was wondering about all the test scraps in the test/licensecheck . > We could (or perhaps more realistically "could if we writing the tests > now") get the test data from the Software::License module. Err, as far as I know, there's no examples of file headers in Software::License module to test license data extraction. Did I miss something ? > Oh thinking about it a bit more, I guess I am asking if we could define > what the precise role of licensecheck is. I think its current role as data extractor is fine. We'll have more trouble finding maintainers later on if it does more like coalescing data. > The problem of going from wild source code to DEP-5 is hard. > > You seem to have attempted that in cme and good luck to you. I'm trying to address 2 problems on top of data extraction: - coalescing data. This is done in a library used by scan-copyrights and cme - merging old copyright data with new one. This is done only by cme. > I added a little of that to license-reconcile but I do not see it as its > role. The idea is that once you have a license-reconcile config file, it > can evolve with the source code and tie the copyright file and source > code together with all moving in sync. That seems to me be the easiest > approach in the long run and it asks very little of licensecheck. I see license-reconcile as a tool to help a manual merge of old copyright data with new data. cme tries to do this automatically. Note that ghostscript package seems to have a similar mechanism to reconcile copyright data. > It could rely on licensecheck to produce DEP-5 license tags or it could > handle it itself. I just want that effort is only invested into that job > in the right places. Is licensecheck the right place or > license-reconcile and cme? If you mean producing license tags in dep5 format (i.e. "gpl-2", "gpl-2+"). Then yes, I think this should be done in licensecheck, but doing so without yet another option may break current tools (e.g. ghostscript package). > Similarly look at > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=519080 . Is that going > too far? No. This bug is fine. I thought I fixed this in 2.15.6, but only the first owner is extracted. I'll fix this. > I think we should either discuss a plan for these bugs or tag them wontfix. Agreed. I think that #472199 should be tagged wontfix or its title should be changed to "need a tool to create dep-5 file from source file". scan-copyrights does this work. I'm fine with extracting it from libconfig- model-dpkg-perl once it has stabilized enough. All the best -- https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org _______________________________________________ devscripts-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devscripts-devel
