Bug#769818: Re: Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Charles Plessy]

Le Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:55:46PM +0200, Martin Erik Werner a écrit :
> 
> In newer versions of lintian, this warning has changed, so the
> following file:
> ###
> Format: 
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> Upstream-Name: td
> Source: http://example.com
> License: dog
>  This is dog license
> 
> Files: *
> Copyright: someone
> License: other
>  This is other license
> ###
> 
> Now reports
> W: cn source: dep5-file-paragraph-reference-header-paragraph dog
> (paragraph at line 7)
> 
> Which is as far as I see still the same false positive.

Hello everybody,

I confirm that this tag is a false positive on several of my packages (for
instance libbio-graphics-perl).

Should this bug be re-assigned to lintian ?

Have a nice week-end,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#769818: Re: Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Martin Erik Werner]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:12:06 -0400 =?UTF-8?Q?David_Pr=c3=a9vot?= <
taf...@debian.org> wrote:
> I assumed what lintian is actually pointing is the missing “Files:
*”
> paragraph (instead of inaccurately using the header paragraph to
> document the main license), or any variant of it (e.g., documenting
> every files or directories in their own “Files” paragraph, as
debian/*
> already is).

This is not the case though, since even if a Files: * field is present,
this warning was triggered.

In newer versions of lintian, this warning has changed, so the
following file:
###
Format: 
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Name: td
Source: http://example.com
License: dog
 This is dog license

Files: *
Copyright: someone
License: other
 This is other license
###

Now reports
W: cn source: dep5-file-paragraph-reference-header-paragraph dog
(paragraph at line 7)

Which is as far as I see still the same false positive.

-- 
Martin Erik Werner 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[David Prévot]

Hi,

[ Charles, please keep some relevant context when replying to a bug
  report, “bts -m show ##” can help. ]

Le 18/04/2015 02:25, Charles Plessy a écrit :

> regarding the tag "missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright", I think, like
> Martin, that it should not be triggered by multi-line License fields in the
> header paragraph.

Let’s try again: I assumed the error pointed by Lintian in Martin
example has nothing to do with multi-line License fields (it even points
at line 7, i.e, the beginning of the only paragraph different than the
header), but to the fact that no files (besides those inside the
debian/* directory) have their license and copyright documented.

> The fact that License fields in header paragraphs are used
> for a different purpose than License fields in Files paragraphs does not 
> change
> that point.

I assumed what lintian is actually pointing is the missing “Files: *”
paragraph (instead of inaccurately using the header paragraph to
document the main license), or any variant of it (e.g., documenting
every files or directories in their own “Files” paragraph, as debian/*
already is).

Regards

David



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Charles Plessy]

Hi David, Martin, and everybody,

regarding the tag "missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright", I think, like
Martin, that it should not be triggered by multi-line License fields in the
header paragraph.

The specification states: "If there are no remaining lines, then all of the
short names or short names followed by license exceptions making up the first
line must be described in stand-alone License paragraphs."  Conversely, if the
License field has multiple lines, then there is no need for a stand-alone
license paragraph.  The fact that License fields in header paragraphs are used
for a different purpose than License fields in Files paragraphs does not change
that point.

Have a nice week-end,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[David Prévot]

Hi,

Le 03/04/2015 19:25, Martin Erik Werner a écrit :

> I'm seeing this same warning without the back-reference to header, for
> example this copyright file:
> 
> ###
> Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> Upstream-Name: td
> Source: http://example.com
> License: dog
>  This is dog license
> 
> Files: debian/*
> Copyright: someone
> License: other
>  This is other license
> ###
> 
> triggers:
> W: td source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright dog (paragraph
> at line 7)
> 
> Which is, as far as I read the policy, a definite false positive, since
> the "dog" license is specified.

You may have missed: “The Copyright and License fields in the header
paragraph may complement but do not replace the Files paragraphs.”

https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#header-paragraph

Regards

David



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Martin Erik Werner]

I'm seeing this same warning without the back-reference to header, for
example this copyright file:

###
Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Name: td
Source: http://example.com
License: dog
 This is dog license

Files: debian/*
Copyright: someone
License: other
 This is other license
###

...triggers:
W: td source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright dog (paragraph
at line 7)

Which is, as far as I read the policy, a definite false positive, since
the "dog" license is specified.

-- 
Martin Erik Werner 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Jakub Wilk]

* Russ Allbery , 2014-10-20, 18:55:

=
$ lintian --version
Lintian v2.5.28
$ lintian ../build-area/lojban-common_1.5+dfsg.1-2.dsc
W: lojban-common source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright 
public-domain (paragraph at line 43)
=

[...]
I'm not at all sure what's actually going on.  For some reason, this 
copyright file is failing to parse properly. I spent some time looking 
at the code and couldn't figure out where it was failing.


I haven't wrapped my head around the code either, but I noticed that 
what triggers this false positive is the header paragraph, not 
"paragraph at line 43".


--
Jakub Wilk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Niels Thykier]

On 2014-10-21 07:57, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> 
> [...]
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> It is because you added the "License" to the "header" paragraph[0][1].
> 
> It is unclear to me that this counts as a "stand-alone" license
> paragraph, but Lintian was coded with the assumption that it does not.
> Keep in mind that the license field in the "header" paragraph has a
> special meaning compared to license fields in other paragraphs[2].
> 
> ~Niels
> 
> [0]
> https://alioth.debian.org/scm/loggerhead/collab-maint/lojban-common/lojban-common.debian/view/head:/debian/copyright
> 
> [1]
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#file-syntax
> 
> [2]
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#header-paragraph
> 
> 

Please regard this, I hadn't fully understood your original report
apparently.

~Niels


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Niels Thykier]

Control: tags -1 moreinfo

On 2014-10-21 01:54, Ben Finney wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.28
> Severity: normal
> 
> The check for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright” apparently
> assumes that any license must have its own separate “License”
> paragraph.
> 
> This restriction does not match Debian policy for the DEP-5 format;
> the stand-alone “License” paragraph is not required, since the full
> license terms can be in the “Files” paragraph in its “License” field.
> 
> An example of a package where this check is giving a false positive is
> https://lintian.debian.org/full/ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au.html#lojban-common_1.5_x2bdfsg.1-2>.
> Each “License” field contains the full license information, and no
> separate “License” paragraph is needed. The Lintian tag
> “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright” should not be triggered
> when this is the case.
> 

Hi Ben,

It is because you added the "License" to the "header" paragraph[0][1].

It is unclear to me that this counts as a "stand-alone" license
paragraph, but Lintian was coded with the assumption that it does not.
Keep in mind that the license field in the "header" paragraph has a
special meaning compared to license fields in other paragraphs[2].

~Niels

[0]
https://alioth.debian.org/scm/loggerhead/collab-maint/lojban-common/lojban-common.debian/view/head:/debian/copyright

[1]
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#file-syntax

[2]
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#header-paragraph


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:
> On 20-Oct-2014, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I don't see any problem with Lintian 2.5.28, and I see on the Lintian
>> report page that it was processed with Lintian 2.5.26.

> I see the problem with Lintian 2.5.28::

> =
> $ lintian --version
> Lintian v2.5.28
> $ lintian ../build-area/lojban-common_1.5+dfsg.1-2.dsc 
> W: lojban-common source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright 
> public-domain (paragraph at line 43)
> =

> just as in the online Lintian log.

> Why would your Lintian and mine report the same version, but get
> different results operating on ‘lojban-common’ at the same Debian
> release?

Because I thought this check would run on the binary package and didn't
run it on the source package.  Sorry!

So there's still a bug here.  But it's not the bug that you stated in your
original message, since there's a whole ton of logic in Lintian to
recognize License paragraphs included in Files stanzas, and this doesn't
happen with other packages.

I'm not at all sure what's actually going on.  For some reason, this
copyright file is failing to parse properly.  I spent some time looking at
the code and couldn't figure out where it was failing.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Ben Finney]

On 20-Oct-2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't see any problem with Lintian 2.5.28, and I see on the Lintian
> report page that it was processed with Lintian 2.5.26.

I see the problem with Lintian 2.5.28::

=
$ lintian --version
Lintian v2.5.28
$ lintian ../build-area/lojban-common_1.5+dfsg.1-2.dsc 
W: lojban-common source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright 
public-domain (paragraph at line 43)
=

just as in the online Lintian log.

Why would your Lintian and mine report the same version, but get
different results operating on ‘lojban-common’ at the same Debian
release?

-- 
 \“[It's] best to confuse only one issue at a time.” —Brian W. |
  `\  Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie, _The C programming language_, 1988 |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:

> The check for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright” apparently
> assumes that any license must have its own separate “License”
> paragraph.

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it's definitely not that.  I put
the license text immediately after the License header in the Files stanza
all the time, without any complaint.

I don't see any problem with Lintian 2.5.28, and I see on the Lintian
report page that it was processed with Lintian 2.5.26.  Maybe this is a
bug that was already fixed?  There were several false positives fixed in
2.5.27.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”

[Ben Finney]

Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.28
Severity: normal

The check for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright” apparently
assumes that any license must have its own separate “License”
paragraph.

This restriction does not match Debian policy for the DEP-5 format;
the stand-alone “License” paragraph is not required, since the full
license terms can be in the “Files” paragraph in its “License” field.

An example of a package where this check is giving a false positive is
https://lintian.debian.org/full/ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au.html#lojban-common_1.5_x2bdfsg.1-2>.
Each “License” field contains the full license information, and no
separate “License” paragraph is needed. The Lintian tag
“missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright” should not be triggered
when this is the case.

-- 
 \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Uh, I think so, |
  `\  Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... ooh, it's all |
_o__) too much for me.” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature