Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Quoting Jeremy Bícha (2024-01-25 22:05:27) > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:48 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > For the record I have not heard from ftpmasters on this issues, and I > > know only what is in this public mailinglist thread. > > > > Obviously I would be happy to be able to maintain the package that I am > > listed as maintainer of. And if that for some reason is unreasonable of > > me to expect then I would appreciate an explanation why. > > I found https://bugs.debian.org/1021999 which suggests that DSA is > responsible for maintaining the version of lintian used for the upload > queue. Do you want to contact them about our request for an upgrade? I would prefer not to do it. Please go ahead if you are up for it. - 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
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:48 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > For the record I have not heard from ftpmasters on this issues, and I > know only what is in this public mailinglist thread. > > Obviously I would be happy to be able to maintain the package that I am > listed as maintainer of. And if that for some reason is unreasonable of > me to expect then I would appreciate an explanation why. I found https://bugs.debian.org/1021999 which suggests that DSA is responsible for maintaining the version of lintian used for the upload queue. Do you want to contact them about our request for an upgrade? Thank you, Jeremy Bícha
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Quoting Jeremy Bícha (2024-01-25 02:50:07) > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 5:58 PM Bastien Roucariès wrote: > > Le vendredi 3 mars 2023, 22:35:24 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > > Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49) > > > > Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > > > Hi jonas, > > > > > > > > I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check > > > > your package and create a simple test case ? > > > > > > > > According to: > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91 > > > > The test should not raise > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me to do. > > > > > > In case it was unclear from my previous posts: The rejection messages I > > > shared was not from a lintian check done locally by me, but a rejection > > > message I received from ftpmaster. > > > > > > Locally I did not experience the same messages. Are you asking me to > > > test again that I (again) do not experience the kind of messages that > > > ftpmasters for some reason unknown to me trigger? > > > > Yes could you double check ? > > > > If you do not experience the kind of messages with locally installed > > lintian, it means that lintian need to be backported and that ftpmaster > > should install a backport version. > > I am still getting the LIntian autoreject for thawab for > license-problem-md5sum-non-free. It is especially annoying that > current Lintian does not emit this error or even a warning because it > knows that thawab is in non-free. > > This is blocking me from being able to fix a RC bug in thawab unless I > repack the tarball which seems like a lot of work for a package that > is in non-free and a version that is **already in the archives**. > > I originally tried to fix this RC bug a year ago but my upload > was auto-rejected then and I forgot to mark this issue for followup. > It was an early enough upload that thawab could have landed in Debian > 12. > > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-islamic-maintainers/2023-January/004920.html For the record I have not heard from ftpmasters on this issues, and I know only what is in this public mailinglist thread. Obviously I would be happy to be able to maintain the package that I am listed as maintainer of. And if that for some reason is unreasonable of me to expect then I would appreciate an explanation why. - 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
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 5:58 PM Bastien Roucariès wrote: > Le vendredi 3 mars 2023, 22:35:24 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49) > > > Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > > Hi jonas, > > > > > > I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check > > > your package and create a simple test case ? > > > > > > According to: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91 > > > The test should not raise > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me to do. > > > > In case it was unclear from my previous posts: The rejection messages I > > shared was not from a lintian check done locally by me, but a rejection > > message I received from ftpmaster. > > > > Locally I did not experience the same messages. Are you asking me to > > test again that I (again) do not experience the kind of messages that > > ftpmasters for some reason unknown to me trigger? > > Yes could you double check ? > > If you do not experience the kind of messages with locally installed lintian, > it means that lintian need to be backported and that ftpmaster should install > a backport version. I am still getting the LIntian autoreject for thawab for license-problem-md5sum-non-free. It is especially annoying that current Lintian does not emit this error or even a warning because it knows that thawab is in non-free. This is blocking me from being able to fix a RC bug in thawab unless I repack the tarball which seems like a lot of work for a package that is in non-free and a version that is **already in the archives**. I originally tried to fix this RC bug a year ago but my upload was auto-rejected then and I forgot to mark this issue for followup. It was an early enough upload that thawab could have landed in Debian 12. https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-islamic-maintainers/2023-January/004920.html Thank you, Jeremy Bícha
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49) > Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Could you double check your package and create a simple test case ? Here is a easy (but not simple: requires unstable Debian, deb-src in apt, and network access) test case: apt source icc-profiles lintian icc-profiles_*.dsc - 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
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 23:57:47) > Le vendredi 3 mars 2023, 22:35:24 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49) > > > Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > > Hi jonas, > > > > > > I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check > > > your package and create a simple test case ? > > > > > > According to: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91 > > > The test should not raise > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me to do. > > > > In case it was unclear from my previous posts: The rejection messages I > > shared was not from a lintian check done locally by me, but a rejection > > message I received from ftpmaster. > > > > Locally I did not experience the same messages. Are you asking me to > > test again that I (again) do not experience the kind of messages that > > ftpmasters for some reason unknown to me trigger? > > Yes could you double check ? > > If you do not experience the kind of messages with locally installed lintian, > it means that lintian need to be backported and that ftpmaster should install > a backport version. Ah, now I understand - sorry for being dense. I do get those files detected on my up-to-date untable system, but only as warnings: $ lintian --tag-display-limit 0 *_amd64.changes W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/ISOcoated_v2_to_PSOcoated_v3_DeviceLink_info_DE.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/ISOcoated_v2_to_PSOcoated_v3_DeviceLink_info_EN.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Coated_300_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Coated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Coated_v3_Glossy_laminate_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Coated_v3_Matte_laminate_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_LWC_Improved_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_LWC_Standard_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_MFC_Paper_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_SNP_Paper_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Uncoated_ISO12647_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Uncoated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOcoated_v3_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOcoated_v3_to_ISOcoated_v2_DeviceLink_info_DE.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOcoated_v3_to_ISOcoated_v2_DeviceLink_info_EN.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOsc-b_paper_v3_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOuncoated_v3_FOGRA52_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSR_LWC_Plus_V2_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSR_LWC_STD_V2_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSR_SC_Plus_V2_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSR_SC_STD_V2_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/SC_paper_info.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/eciRGB.txt [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/licence.rtf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information HP/c55.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information IDEAlliance/Introducing PrintWide - Idealliance.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information IDEAlliance/Introducing the XCMYK Profile 12.1.17.11.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information IDEAlliance/PrintWide2020 - Idealliance.icc [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information IDEAlliance/README PrintWide - Idealliance.txt [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information JPMA/JC_ICCprofile__Appendix.pdf [debian/copyright] W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information color.org/ICC_ITU.txt
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Le vendredi 3 mars 2023, 22:35:24 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49) > > Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > Hi jonas, > > > > I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check your > > package and create a simple test case ? > > > > According to: > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91 > > The test should not raise > > Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me to do. > > In case it was unclear from my previous posts: The rejection messages I > shared was not from a lintian check done locally by me, but a rejection > message I received from ftpmaster. > > Locally I did not experience the same messages. Are you asking me to > test again that I (again) do not experience the kind of messages that > ftpmasters for some reason unknown to me trigger? Yes could you double check ? If you do not experience the kind of messages with locally installed lintian, it means that lintian need to be backported and that ftpmaster should install a backport version. Bastien > > - Jonas > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49) > Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Hi jonas, > > I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check your > package and create a simple test case ? > > According to: > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91 > The test should not raise Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me to do. In case it was unclear from my previous posts: The rejection messages I shared was not from a lintian check done locally by me, but a rejection message I received from ftpmaster. Locally I did not experience the same messages. Are you asking me to test again that I (again) do not experience the kind of messages that ftpmasters for some reason unknown to me trigger? - 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
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Hi jonas, I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check your package and create a simple test case ? According to: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91 The test should not raise Bastien > Quoting Simon McVittie (2023-02-27 13:04:25) > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 12:22:34 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > I am not convinced, however, that this issue is a bug in lintian: > > > The testcase you ask for is the actual files in the icc-profiles source > > > package which already is already correctly identified by lintian. I.e. > > > issue is not that some different files get misdetected but instead that > > > lintian _correctly_ identifies the files in this non-free package and > > > _correctly_ classifies those as unsuitable in main > > > > That's correct to a point, but it seems wrong for lintian to be emitting a > > tag that means "this package is unsuitable for main and that's a problem" > > for a package in non-free. Yes, we know it's unsuitable for main, and > > the maintainer has acknowledged that by uploading it to non-free... it > > doesn't seem like there is any benefit to having an unfixable Lintian > > error as well. > > > > Or if the interpretation of the tag is "you should use the copy of this > > file from icc-profiles instead of shipping your own copy", then the lintian > > check should have a special case to silence that tag when the package being > > checked *is* icc-profiles. > > > > There are similar special cases in other parts of Lintian. For example, > > it looks for embedded code copies of zlib, but that check has a special > > case to avoid it being triggered by zlib itself, because obviously zlib > > should be allowed to ship zlib code; and similarly checks for a bundled > > font like Deja Vu shouldn't trigger for fonts-dejavu itself. > > Ah, I was unaware that lintian at other places includes exceptions like > that, an that lintian is expected to do reliable assessments in this > kind of tests. > > When that's the case, then please, Bastien (or others skilled with > internals of lintian) please refine the tests for icc-profiles contents > to exclude icc-profiles package itself. > > (I'll file a bugreport against lintian if I notice no actions from this) > > Kind regards, > > - Jonas > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Quoting Simon McVittie (2023-02-27 13:04:25) > On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 12:22:34 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > I am not convinced, however, that this issue is a bug in lintian: > > The testcase you ask for is the actual files in the icc-profiles source > > package which already is already correctly identified by lintian. I.e. > > issue is not that some different files get misdetected but instead that > > lintian _correctly_ identifies the files in this non-free package and > > _correctly_ classifies those as unsuitable in main > > That's correct to a point, but it seems wrong for lintian to be emitting a > tag that means "this package is unsuitable for main and that's a problem" > for a package in non-free. Yes, we know it's unsuitable for main, and > the maintainer has acknowledged that by uploading it to non-free... it > doesn't seem like there is any benefit to having an unfixable Lintian > error as well. > > Or if the interpretation of the tag is "you should use the copy of this > file from icc-profiles instead of shipping your own copy", then the lintian > check should have a special case to silence that tag when the package being > checked *is* icc-profiles. > > There are similar special cases in other parts of Lintian. For example, > it looks for embedded code copies of zlib, but that check has a special > case to avoid it being triggered by zlib itself, because obviously zlib > should be allowed to ship zlib code; and similarly checks for a bundled > font like Deja Vu shouldn't trigger for fonts-dejavu itself. Ah, I was unaware that lintian at other places includes exceptions like that, an that lintian is expected to do reliable assessments in this kind of tests. When that's the case, then please, Bastien (or others skilled with internals of lintian) please refine the tests for icc-profiles contents to exclude icc-profiles package itself. (I'll file a bugreport against lintian if I notice no actions from this) Kind regards, - 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
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 12:22:34 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I am not convinced, however, that this issue is a bug in lintian: > The testcase you ask for is the actual files in the icc-profiles source > package which already is already correctly identified by lintian. I.e. > issue is not that some different files get misdetected but instead that > lintian _correctly_ identifies the files in this non-free package and > _correctly_ classifies those as unsuitable in main That's correct to a point, but it seems wrong for lintian to be emitting a tag that means "this package is unsuitable for main and that's a problem" for a package in non-free. Yes, we know it's unsuitable for main, and the maintainer has acknowledged that by uploading it to non-free... it doesn't seem like there is any benefit to having an unfixable Lintian error as well. Or if the interpretation of the tag is "you should use the copy of this file from icc-profiles instead of shipping your own copy", then the lintian check should have a special case to silence that tag when the package being checked *is* icc-profiles. There are similar special cases in other parts of Lintian. For example, it looks for embedded code copies of zlib, but that check has a special case to avoid it being triggered by zlib itself, because obviously zlib should be allowed to ship zlib code; and similarly checks for a bundled font like Deja Vu shouldn't trigger for fonts-dejavu itself. smcv
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-02-25 15:04:09) > Le vendredi 24 février 2023, 06:13:48 UTC Shengjing Zhu a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > > > What to do when a package is blocked from getting updated due to it > > > being itself? > > > > > > I have tried replying to FTPmasters as invited in the rejection message, > > > but have been met with silence. > > > > > > I have tried filing bug#1030961 but have so far seen no response on that > > > either. > > > > > > Will it make sense to reassing that bugreport to the technical > > > committee? Or to the release team? Or should I request removal of the > > > package, because security bugfixes (however unlikely for a package > > > containing purely static data files) is impossible? > > > > > > > > > - Jonas > > > > > > Quoting Debian FTP Masters (2023-02-09 04:19:39) > > > > > > > > icc-profiles source: lintian output: > > > > 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc usual name is > > > > ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc. Does not allow modification See also > > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected > > > > package. > Seems like a bug on lintian > > Feel free to prod me with a small testcase or a patch will try to do something Thanks, Shengjing Zhu, for suggesting to solve this in lintian. Thanks, Bastien, for offering to help do that. I am not convinced, however, that this issue is a bug in lintian: The testcase you ask for is the actual files in the icc-profiles source package which already is already correctly identified by lintian. I.e. issue is not that some different files get misdetected but instead that lintian _correctly_ identifies the files in this non-free package and _correctly_ classifies those as unsuitable in main, but ftpmaster then using that identification and classification as reason for rejecting an upload of the non-free package. - 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
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Le vendredi 24 février 2023, 06:13:48 UTC Shengjing Zhu a écrit : > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > What to do when a package is blocked from getting updated due to it > > being itself? > > > > I have tried replying to FTPmasters as invited in the rejection message, > > but have been met with silence. > > > > I have tried filing bug#1030961 but have so far seen no response on that > > either. > > > > Will it make sense to reassing that bugreport to the technical > > committee? Or to the release team? Or should I request removal of the > > package, because security bugfixes (however unlikely for a package > > containing purely static data files) is impossible? > > > > > > - Jonas > > > > Quoting Debian FTP Masters (2023-02-09 04:19:39) > > > > > > icc-profiles source: lintian output: > > > 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc usual name is > > > ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc. Does not allow modification See also > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected > > > package. Seems like a bug on lintian Feel free to prod me with a small testcase or a patch will try to do something Bastien > [snip] > > > icc-profiles source: lintian output: > > > 'source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild ', automatically > > > rejected package. > > > icc-profiles source: If you have a good reason, you may override this > > > lintian tag. > > It's auto rejected. So I think it can be technically solved. > For license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file, it's obviously a false > positive from lintian. It should not emit such if the source is the > non-free section. It should be reported as a bug for the lintian > package. And you can submit patches as well, backport to the version > that ftp-master server uses. > For source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild, it's really a > bug in your upload. You should fix it. > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
Hi, On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > What to do when a package is blocked from getting updated due to it > being itself? > > I have tried replying to FTPmasters as invited in the rejection message, > but have been met with silence. > > I have tried filing bug#1030961 but have so far seen no response on that > either. > > Will it make sense to reassing that bugreport to the technical > committee? Or to the release team? Or should I request removal of the > package, because security bugfixes (however unlikely for a package > containing purely static data files) is impossible? > > > - Jonas > > Quoting Debian FTP Masters (2023-02-09 04:19:39) > > > > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > > ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc usual name is ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc. Does not allow > > modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > > automatically rejected package. [snip] > > icc-profiles source: lintian output: > > 'source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild ', automatically rejected > > package. > > icc-profiles source: If you have a good reason, you may override this > > lintian tag. It's auto rejected. So I think it can be technically solved. For license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file, it's obviously a false positive from lintian. It should not emit such if the source is the non-free section. It should be reported as a bug for the lintian package. And you can submit patches as well, backport to the version that ftp-master server uses. For source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild, it's really a bug in your upload. You should fix it. -- Shengjing Zhu
Re: icc-profiles_2.2_source.changes REJECTED
What to do when a package is blocked from getting updated due to it being itself? I have tried replying to FTPmasters as invited in the rejection message, but have been met with silence. I have tried filing bug#1030961 but have so far seen no response on that either. Will it make sense to reassing that bugreport to the technical committee? Or to the release team? Or should I request removal of the package, because security bugfixes (however unlikely for a package containing purely static data files) is impossible? - Jonas Quoting Debian FTP Masters (2023-02-09 04:19:39) > > > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc usual name is ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc. Does not allow modification > See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically > rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > GRACoL2006_Coated1v2.icc usual name is GRACoL2006_Coated1v2.icc. Does not > allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ISOcoated.icc usual name is ISOcoated.icc. Does not allow modification See > also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected > package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ISOcoated_v2_300_eci.icc usual name is ISOcoated_v2_300_eci.icc. Does not > allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc usual name is ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc. Does not allow > modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ISOnewspaper26v4.icc usual name is ISOnewspaper26v4.icc. Does not allow > modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ISOnewspaper26v4_gr.icc usual name is ISOnewspaper26v4_gr.icc. Does not allow > modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ISOuncoated.icc usual name is ISOuncoated.icc. Does not allow modification > See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically > rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ISOuncoatedyellowish.icc usual name is ISOuncoatedyellowish.icc. Does not > allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > ISOwebcoated.icc usual name is ISOwebcoated.icc. Does not allow modification > See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically > rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > PSO_Coated_300_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc usual name is > PSO_Coated_300_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See > also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected > package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > PSO_Coated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc usual name is > PSO_Coated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also > https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected > package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > PSO_LWC_Improved_eci.icc usual name is PSO_LWC_Improved_eci.icc. Does not > allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > PSO_LWC_Standard_eci.icc usual name is PSO_LWC_Standard_eci.icc. Does not > allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > PSO_MFC_Paper_eci.icc usual name is PSO_MFC_Paper_eci.icc. Does not allow > modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > PSO_SNP_Paper_eci.icc usual name is PSO_SNP_Paper_eci.icc. Does not allow > modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', > automatically rejected package. > icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file > PSO_Uncoated_ISO12647_eci.icc usual name is PSO_Uncoated_ISO12647_eci.icc. >
