Bug#769818: Re: Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”
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”
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 ienor...@gmail.com -- 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”
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”
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”
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 martinerikwer...@gmail.com -- 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”
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
