Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

[Ben Finney]

On 19-Jan-2018, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney  writes:
> 
> > We may be describing different problems. I am responding to a bug report
> > that claims:
> 
> > Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with
> > derivative works […]
> 
> > and I'm asking how that assertion squares with the text of the license.
> 
> Oh, if that was the question, the answer is that this was a quick
> and mildly inaccurate paraphrase of the actual license text because
> my bug report was written quickly.

Yes, I was taking that as your paraphrase of the intent of the license
text. I'm questioning how you get to that stated intent, because I
don't see it in the license text.

> Well, I don't agree with your interpretation of either Debian Policy
> or the license, and the active Lintian developers added the check I
> wanted, so I'm happy.

Thanks. I think you're telling me you don't want to engage with my
question about how you get the above statement of intent, from the
actual text of the license?

You're under no obligation of course, and I'm not demanding it; but
I'm currently at a loss to understand how you get there.

> If you want to try to talk the Lintian developers into removing the
> check again, feel free, and I won't further get in your way.

Thanks for saying so. To talk with them, though, I would be better
informed if I could say what your position is and know wy; as it is I
feel I would be putting words into your mouth. I don't want to do
that, but that's what I'm left with so far.

> My entire purpose in opening the original bug was to provide Debian
> packagers a pointer to an easy way to avoid this fiddly bit of
> license trivia with zero ongoing maintenance cost.

Likewise, my purpose here is to try to revoke this Lintian check,
since I see it as only causing extra work for no benefit.

> Talking it to death is directly contrary to the entire reason I
> created this bug. :)

I appreciate that sentiment :-)

I leave it open for you to go to the effort of explaining the missing
connection, so I don't have to guess when talking about it with the
Lintian maintainers.

-- 
 \   “The long-term solution to mountains of waste is not more |
  `\  landfill sites but fewer shopping centres.” —Clive Hamilton, |
_o__)_Affluenza_, 2005 |
Ben Finney 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#887817: lintian: check for patches present in debian/patches/ but missing from the series file

[Paul Wise]

Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.70
Severity: wishlist

Please add a check that warns about patch files that are present in
debian/patches/ but are missing from the series file.

If the filename is present in the series file but commented out (allow
spaces after the comment character and before the filename), the file
can be ignored since there is probably a reason for it to be disabled.

Perhaps the check should require a reasoning comment (I guess look for
a comment line containing multiple spaces) before the commented file?

This will warn about the urlwatch package on mentors.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[lintian] branch master updated (d15de1a -> 2937bc3)

[Chris Lamb]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

lamby pushed a change to branch master
in repository lintian.

  from  d15de1a   spelling: Add another correction
   new  2cc90f1   data/rules/rules-should-not-use: Add more context to 
xz-compression-level-too-high tag output.
   new  3bf3ca7   checks/python.pm: Don't emit 
"python-package-missing-depends-on-python" for debug packages
   new  2937bc3   checks/python.desc: Include possibility that the file 
should not even be installed in the description of 
python-package-missing-depends-on-python.

The 3 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
listed as "adds" were already present in the repository and have only
been added to this reference.


Summary of changes:
 checks/python.desc   |  4 ++--
 checks/python.pm | 16 +---
 data/rules/rules-should-not-use  |  2 +-
 debian/changelog |  8 
 .../debian/debian/rules  |  2 ++
 t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/tags |  6 --
 6 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:

> We may be describing different problems. I am responding to a bug report
> that claims:

> Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with
> derivative works […]

> and I'm asking how that assertion squares with the text of the license.

Oh, if that was the question, the answer is that this was a quick and
mildly inaccurate paraphrase of the actual license text because my bug
report was written quickly.

Please assume that part of my message actually contains the full text of
the relevant point of the license.  It makes no difference from my
perspective in my request for a Lintian tag.

> That point also doesn't support making a Lintian error for failing to
> duplicate information that, when the Debian Policy requirements are
> satisfied by transcribing that information into the ‘copyright’ file
> installed with every binary package, entirely satisfies the Apache
> License 2.0 §4(d) requirements.

Well, I don't agree with your interpretation of either Debian Policy or
the license, and the active Lintian developers added the check I wanted,
so I'm happy.  If you want to try to talk the Lintian developers into
removing the check again, feel free, and I won't further get in your way.
I find this check very useful for all the reasons I previously stated, and
which I think are fairly obvious on this thread, so I'll be sad if that
happens, but I suppose I can write my own check if I need to.

I've already invested more time in this discussion than I will spend on
installing the NOTICE file for every package I'm likely to maintain under
this license for the next ten years, so I think I've exhausted my budget
of being willing to elaborate, particularly since I really don't have
anything more to add to my original rationale and my immediately previous
message.  My entire purpose in opening the original bug was to provide
Debian packagers a pointer to an easy way to avoid this fiddly bit of
license trivia with zero ongoing maintenance cost.  Talking it to death is
directly contrary to the entire reason I created this bug.  :)

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

[lintian] 02/03: checks/python.pm: Don't emit "python-package-missing-depends-on-python" for debug packages

[Chris Lamb]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

lamby pushed a commit to branch master
in repository lintian.

commit 3bf3ca7e13dc8fcb4fb44f2f8c8cfb0c6699
Author: Chris Lamb 
Date:   Sat Jan 20 17:00:50 2018 +1100

checks/python.pm: Don't emit "python-package-missing-depends-on-python" for 
debug packages
---
 checks/python.pm | 16 +---
 debian/changelog |  3 +++
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/checks/python.pm b/checks/python.pm
index 6756600..f24152f 100644
--- a/checks/python.pm
+++ b/checks/python.pm
@@ -110,13 +110,15 @@ sub _run_binary {
 my @entries = $info->changelog ? $info->changelog->data : ();
 
 # Check for missing dependencies
-foreach my $file ($info->sorted_index) {
-if ($file->is_file
-and $file
-=~ m,usr/lib/(?python[23])[\d.]*/(?:site|dist)-packages,
-and not $deps->implies($REQUIRED_DEPENDS{$+{version}})) {
-tag 'python-package-missing-depends-on-python';
-last;
+if ($pkg !~ /-dbg$/) {
+foreach my $file ($info->sorted_index) {
+if ($file->is_file
+and $file
+=~ 
m,usr/lib/(?python[23])[\d.]*/(?:site|dist)-packages,
+and not $deps->implies($REQUIRED_DEPENDS{$+{version}})) {
+tag 'python-package-missing-depends-on-python';
+last;
+}
 }
 }
 
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index d21f932..565367b 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -4,6 +4,9 @@ lintian (2.5.71) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
 
   * checks/files.pm:
 + [CL] Ignore Rust .rs files in extra-license-file.  (Closes: #887715)
+  * checks/python.pm:
++ [CL] Don't emit "python-package-missing-depends-on-python" for debug
+  packages
 
   * data/rules/rules-should-not-use:
 + [CL] Add more context to xz-compression-level-too-high tag output.

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

[lintian] 01/03: data/rules/rules-should-not-use: Add more context to xz-compression-level-too-high tag output.

[Chris Lamb]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

lamby pushed a commit to branch master
in repository lintian.

commit 2cc90f118a96288e168d1d143212a22e4b477aec
Author: Chris Lamb 
Date:   Sat Jan 20 16:32:27 2018 +1100

data/rules/rules-should-not-use: Add more context to 
xz-compression-level-too-high tag output.
---
 data/rules/rules-should-not-use | 2 +-
 debian/changelog| 3 +++
 t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/debian/debian/rules | 2 ++
 t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/tags| 6 --
 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/data/rules/rules-should-not-use b/data/rules/rules-should-not-use
index 47cab90..1c76a3a 100644
--- a/data/rules/rules-should-not-use
+++ b/data/rules/rules-should-not-use
@@ -9,4 +9,4 @@ debian-rules-should-not-use-DH_EXTRA_ADDONS  ~~ 
^\s*DH_EXTRA_ADDONS\
 debian-rules-should-not-use-or-modify-user-only-variable ~~ \bDEB_[^_ 
\t]+FLAGS_(?:SET|APPEND)\b
 debian-rules-should-not-use-pwd  ~~ \$[\(\{]PWD[\)\}]
 debian-rules-should-not-use-underscore-variable  ~~ \$[\(\{]_[\)\}]
-xz-compression-level-too-high~~ 
dh_builddeb\b.*--.*(?:-z\s*(?9).*-Z\s*xz|-Z\s*xz.*-z\s*(?9))
+xz-compression-level-too-high~~ 
(?dh_builddeb\b.*--.*(?:-z\s*9.*-Z\s*xz|-Z\s*xz.*-z\s*9)\S*)
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 585dc6a..d21f932 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ lintian (2.5.71) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
   * checks/files.pm:
 + [CL] Ignore Rust .rs files in extra-license-file.  (Closes: #887715)
 
+  * data/rules/rules-should-not-use:
++ [CL] Add more context to xz-compression-level-too-high tag output.
+
   * lib/Lintian/Collect/Package.pm:
 + [CL] Fix "Use of uninitialized value in string ne" warnings that
   would have appeared as part of the src-orig-index handling in 2.5.66.
diff --git a/t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/debian/debian/rules 
b/t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/debian/debian/rules
index 6034196..fbbdc99 100755
--- a/t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/debian/debian/rules
+++ b/t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/debian/debian/rules
@@ -8,3 +8,5 @@ override_dh_builddeb:
dh_builddeb -- -z9 -Z xz
dh_builddeb -- -z8 -Z xz
dh_builddeb -- -z9 -Zgzip
+   dh_builddeb -- -Zxz -Sextreme -z9
+   dh_builddeb -- -Zxz -z9 -Sextreme
diff --git a/t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/tags 
b/t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/tags
index 1a30024..acc78b9 100644
--- a/t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/tags
+++ b/t/tests/rules-xz-compression-level-too-high/tags
@@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
-W: rules-xz-compression-level-too-high source: xz-compression-level-too-high 9 
(line 7)
-W: rules-xz-compression-level-too-high source: xz-compression-level-too-high 9 
(line 8)
+W: rules-xz-compression-level-too-high source: xz-compression-level-too-high 
dh_builddeb --  -Zxz  -z 9 (line 7)
+W: rules-xz-compression-level-too-high source: xz-compression-level-too-high 
dh_builddeb -- -Zxz -Sextreme -z9 (line 11)
+W: rules-xz-compression-level-too-high source: xz-compression-level-too-high 
dh_builddeb -- -Zxz -z9 (line 12)
+W: rules-xz-compression-level-too-high source: xz-compression-level-too-high 
dh_builddeb -- -z9 -Z xz (line 8)

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

[lintian] 03/03: checks/python.desc: Include possibility that the file should not even be installed in the description of python-package-missing-depends-on-python.

[Chris Lamb]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

lamby pushed a commit to branch master
in repository lintian.

commit 2937bc32d13c5a6b10d3dc2fcc205b4383a8253b
Author: Chris Lamb 
Date:   Sat Jan 20 17:04:17 2018 +1100

checks/python.desc: Include possibility that the file should not even be 
installed in the description of python-package-missing-depends-on-python.
---
 checks/python.desc | 4 ++--
 debian/changelog   | 4 +++-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/checks/python.desc b/checks/python.desc
index 5c636d6..c3a5496 100644
--- a/checks/python.desc
+++ b/checks/python.desc
@@ -117,5 +117,5 @@ Certainty: certain
 Info: The specified Python package ships Python modules under
  /usr/lib but does not specify any dependency on Python.
  .
- This is likely an omission or the result of a typo in
- debian/control.
+ This is likely an omission, the result of a typo in
+ debian/control or the file should not be installed.
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 565367b..18d0afe 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -4,9 +4,11 @@ lintian (2.5.71) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
 
   * checks/files.pm:
 + [CL] Ignore Rust .rs files in extra-license-file.  (Closes: #887715)
-  * checks/python.pm:
+  * checks/python.{desc,pm}:
 + [CL] Don't emit "python-package-missing-depends-on-python" for debug
   packages
++ [CL] Include possibility that the file should not even be installed
+  in the description of python-package-missing-depends-on-python.
 
   * data/rules/rules-should-not-use:
 + [CL] Add more context to xz-compression-level-too-high tag output.

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

[Ben Finney]

On 19-Jan-2018, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney  writes:
> 
> > Why the entire contents? The only thing that clause requires is “the
> > attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file”.
> 
> Let's make this more concrete, because I'm not sure you understand
> the nature of the problem.

We may be describing different problems. I am responding to a bug
report that claims:

Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with
derivative works […]

and I'm asking how that assertion squares with the text of the
license.

> Here's an example of a NOTICE file from a real Debian package:
> 
>[…]
> 
> What parts of this do you think are attribution notices?
> What parts of this do you think a Debian developer would naturally
> include in debian/copyright?

I can't claim to know what an unspecified Debian developer would
naturally do.

You appear to be asking that to make the point that it's difficult to
maintain transcribed information when that information is subject to
change; I agree with that point.

That point is not special to the Apache License 2.0 requirements.

That point also doesn't support making a Lintian error for failing to
duplicate information that, when the Debian Policy requirements are
satisfied by transcribing that information into the ‘copyright’ file
installed with every binary package, entirely satisfies the Apache
License 2.0 §4(d) requirements.

> Important additional piece of information: other than in this file,
> the string "The Danish CLARIN Consortium" appears nowhere in the
> upstream source distribution, and the string "The National Research
> Council of Canada" appears only here and in a CREDITS file.

I don't see how that's relevant to the justification of what the
Apache License 2.0 requires.

Either that information is required in the ‘copyright’ file (because
it is attribution notices needed for copyright information), or
they're not attribution notices and so the Apache License 2.0 doesn't
require us to distribute that information.

If there isn't a special requirement on us to copy the ‘NOTICE’ file
in addition to the existing Debian policy requirements – and my
reading of this bug report leads me to conclude there is no such
special requirement – I don't see why we'd impose a Lintian error tag
for that.

-- 
 \  “[I]t is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he |
  `\thinks he already knows.” —Epictetus, _Discourses_ |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[lintian] branch master updated (a1ed857 -> d15de1a)

[Paul Wise]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

pabs pushed a change to branch master
in repository lintian.

  from  a1ed857   t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files: Only run on amd64. 
(Closes: #886163)
   new  d15de1a   spelling: Add another correction

The 1 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
listed as "adds" were already present in the repository and have only
been added to this reference.


Summary of changes:
 data/spelling/corrections | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

[lintian] 01/01: spelling: Add another correction

[Paul Wise]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

pabs pushed a commit to branch master
in repository lintian.

commit d15de1a0fff7619bfa9de71f8848a6276053fb9d
Author: Paul Wise 
Date:   Sat Jan 20 13:26:31 2018 +0800

spelling: Add another correction
---
 data/spelling/corrections | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/data/spelling/corrections b/data/spelling/corrections
index 538c53e..9d6376f 100644
--- a/data/spelling/corrections
+++ b/data/spelling/corrections
@@ -3771,6 +3771,7 @@ temorary||temporary
 tempararily||temporarily
 temparary||temporary
 temporarly||temporarily
+temproary||temporary
 tenatively||tentatively
 tenative||tentative
 terminaters||terminators

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:

> Why the entire contents? The only thing that clause requires is “the
> attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file”.

Let's make this more concrete, because I'm not sure you understand the
nature of the problem.  Here's an example of a NOTICE file from a real
Debian package:

We wish to acknowledge the following copyrighted works that make up
portions of this software:

This product includes software developed by the Apache Software
Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).

This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/).

This project uses libraries covered by the Lesser GNU Public License.
Source code for these libraries is available on request.

This product includes software developed, copyrighted, and/or
contributed by:

The Ohio State University
The National Research Council of Canada
The Danish CLARIN Consortium
National Institute of Informatics in Japan

What parts of this do you think are attribution notices?

What parts of this do you think a Debian developer would naturally include
in debian/copyright?  Important additional piece of information: other
than in this file, the string "The Danish CLARIN Consortium" appears
nowhere in the upstream source distribution, and the string "The National
Research Council of Canada" appears only here and in a CREDITS file.

What makes you confident that the process you propose would continue to
satisfy the license going forward during normal upstream updates?

How much energy would you want to spend on defending your interpretation
of this in order to avoid installing this file in the documentation area
of the package?

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

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

[Ben Finney]

On 19-Jan-2018, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney  writes:
> 
> > That does require “Derivative Works […] must include a readable
> > copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file
> > […] in at least one of the following places: […] within the Source
> > form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative
> > Works; […]”.
> 
> > Do you think the routine inclusion of those notices, in the package's
> > ‘copyright’ file, does not satisfy [Apache License 2.0 §4(d)]?
> 
> It does if you actually include the entire contents of NOTICE in the
> copyright file

Why the entire contents? The only thing that clause requires is “the
attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file”.

Do you think that clause requires duplicating, in addition to the
attribution notices, anything extra from the ‘NOTICE’ file?

> Perhaps you were under the assumption that the NOTICE file contains
> only the copyright and license statement that we would naturally put
> in debian/copyright anyway?

I find the Apache License 2.0 §4(d) requires duplication of *only* the
attribution notices. That is satisfied by adhering to Debian's own
requirements for the ‘copyright’ file.

> While there are other ways to satisfying the Apache 2.0 requirement,
> I strongly believe that the best approach for *Debian* as a whole to
> take is to just routinely install the NOTICE file as part of the
> package documentation.

I think this would be entirely superfluous with the general Debian
requirements for *all* its packages. I would like to know why you
think more is required than what we already routinely transcribe into
the ‘copyright’ file.

-- 
 \   “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone |
  `\  else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a |
_o__)   quotation.” —Oscar Wilde, _De Profundis_, 1897 |
Ben Finney 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:

> That does require “Derivative Works […] must include a readable copy of
> the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file […] in at
> least one of the following places: […] within the Source form or
> documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; […]”.

> Do you think the routine inclusion of those notices, in the package's
> ‘copyright’ file, does not satisfy the above clause?

It does if you actually include the entire contents of NOTICE in the
copyright file, and are meticulous about updating debian/copyright every
time upstream changes the NOTICE file.  I definitely do not trust myself
to do this, particularly when just installing the NOTICE file is trivial
with our packaging tools and makes the problem go away completely.

Perhaps you were under the assumption that the NOTICE file contains only
the copyright and license statement that we would naturally put in
debian/copyright anyway?  While there are *some* Apache 2.0 packages where
this is the case, there is nothing about the Apache 2.0 license that
requires this, and there are definitely packages where this is *not* the
case.

While there are other ways to satisfying the Apache 2.0 requirement, I
strongly believe that the best approach for *Debian* as a whole to take is
to just routinely install the NOTICE file as part of the package
documentation.  This is simple, foolproof, trivial to do, and lets us
forget about this issue entirely rather than carefully analyzing the
situation or remembering to resync copies of the upstream file.

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

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

[Ben Finney]

On 22-Dec-2017, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with
> derivative works […]

My reading of the license text doesn't match that. I think you are
referring to Apache License version 2.0, § 4 (d):

  (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
  distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute
  must include a readable copy of the attribution notices
  contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices
  that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in
  at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text
  file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the
  Source form or documentation, if provided along with the
  Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the
  Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices
  normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for
  informational purposes only and do not modify the License.
  You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative
  Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to
  the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional
  attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the
  License.

That does require “Derivative Works […] must include a readable copy
of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file […] in at
least one of the following places: […] within the Source form or
documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; […]”.

Do you think the routine inclusion of those notices, in the package's
‘copyright’ file, does not satisfy the above clause? I think it does:
that file is installed in the documentation along with the package.

So, I am not seeing how you think the ‘NOTICE’ file itself must be
duplicated.

-- 
 \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, but |
  `\  where will we find an open tattoo parlor at this time of |
_o__)   night?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#886163: lintian FTBFS on i386: fail tests::files-multiarch-foreign-files: output differs!

[Chris Lamb]

tags 886163 + pending
thanks

Fixed in Git:

  
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=a1ed8571f2dc73aa5ba307468a1099a37fda3dbc


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Processed: Re: lintian FTBFS on i386: fail tests::files-multiarch-foreign-files: output differs!

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> tags 886163 + pending
Bug #886163 [src:lintian] lintian FTBFS on i386: fail 
tests::files-multiarch-foreign-files: output differs!
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
886163: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=886163
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

[lintian] 01/01: t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files: Only run on amd64. (Closes: #886163)

[Chris Lamb]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

lamby pushed a commit to branch master
in repository lintian.

commit a1ed8571f2dc73aa5ba307468a1099a37fda3dbc
Author: Chris Lamb 
Date:   Fri Jan 19 22:48:31 2018 +1100

t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files: Only run on amd64. (Closes: #886163)
---
 debian/changelog   | 3 +++
 t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files/desc | 1 +
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 8f94390..585dc6a 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ lintian (2.5.71) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
   would have appeared as part of the src-orig-index handling in 2.5.66.
   (Closes: #887428)
 
+  * t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files:
++ [CL] Only run on amd64.  (Closes: #886163)
+
  -- Chris Lamb   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:03:37 +1100
 
 lintian (2.5.70) unstable; urgency=medium
diff --git a/t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files/desc 
b/t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files/desc
index 3f0dc35..044ac45 100644
--- a/t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files/desc
+++ b/t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files/desc
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 Testname: files-multiarch-foreign-files
 Version: 1.0
 Description: Test for files violating Multi-Arch: foreign
+Architecture: amd64
 Test-for:
  multiarch-foreign-cmake-file
  multiarch-foreign-pkgconfig

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

Processed: Re: lintian: false positive: extra-license-file

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> tags 887715 + pending
Bug #887715 [lintian] lintian: false positive: extra-license-file
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
887715: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=887715
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

[lintian] branch master updated (35250ff -> a1ed857)

[Chris Lamb]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

lamby pushed a change to branch master
in repository lintian.

  from  35250ff   checks/files.pm: Ignore Rust .rs files in 
extra-license-file. (Closes: #887715)
   new  a1ed857   t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files: Only run on amd64. 
(Closes: #886163)

The 1 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
listed as "adds" were already present in the repository and have only
been added to this reference.


Summary of changes:
 debian/changelog   | 3 +++
 t/tests/files-multiarch-foreign-files/desc | 1 +
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

Bug#887715: lintian: false positive: extra-license-file

[Chris Lamb]

tags 887715 + pending
thanks

Fixed in Git:

  
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=35250ffad038e57f49cc276370570d01d43f2034


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

[lintian] branch master updated (ff69c71 -> 35250ff)

[Chris Lamb]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

lamby pushed a change to branch master
in repository lintian.

  from  ff69c71   spelling: Add several corrections
   new  35250ff   checks/files.pm: Ignore Rust .rs files in 
extra-license-file. (Closes: #887715)

The 1 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
listed as "adds" were already present in the repository and have only
been added to this reference.


Summary of changes:
 checks/files.pm  | 2 +-
 debian/changelog | 3 +++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

[lintian] 01/01: checks/files.pm: Ignore Rust .rs files in extra-license-file. (Closes: #887715)

[Chris Lamb]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

lamby pushed a commit to branch master
in repository lintian.

commit 35250ffad038e57f49cc276370570d01d43f2034
Author: Chris Lamb 
Date:   Fri Jan 19 22:44:22 2018 +1100

checks/files.pm: Ignore Rust .rs files in extra-license-file. (Closes: 
#887715)
---
 checks/files.pm  | 2 +-
 debian/changelog | 3 +++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/checks/files.pm b/checks/files.pm
index f14feb6..2d8b7d1 100644
--- a/checks/files.pm
+++ b/checks/files.pm
@@ -1286,7 +1286,7 @@ sub run {
 and not $fname =~ m{ \. (?:
   # Common "non-license" file extensions...
el|[ch]|cc|p[ylmc]|[hu]i|p_hi|html|php|rb|xpm
- |png|jpe?g|gif|svg|dtd|mk|lisp|yml
+ |png|jpe?g|gif|svg|dtd|mk|lisp|yml|rs
) \Z}xsm
 and not $fname=~ m,^usr/share/zope/Products/.*\.(?:dtml|pt|cpt)$,
 and not $fname =~ m,/under\S+License\.docbook$,
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index f4ec5fe..8f94390 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -2,6 +2,9 @@ lintian (2.5.71) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
 
   XXX: generate tag summary
 
+  * checks/files.pm:
++ [CL] Ignore Rust .rs files in extra-license-file.  (Closes: #887715)
+
   * lib/Lintian/Collect/Package.pm:
 + [CL] Fix "Use of uninitialized value in string ne" warnings that
   would have appeared as part of the src-orig-index handling in 2.5.66.

-- 
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on 
/srv/git.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git

Bug#887715: lintian: false positive: extra-license-file

[Ximin Luo]

Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.68
Severity: minor

Dear Maintainer,

https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/pkg-rust-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org.html#rustc

For version rustc (1.23.0+dfsg1-1~exp1) there is a false positive:

rust-src

W extra-license-file
usr/src/rustc-1.23.0/src/vendor/nix/src/sys/ioctl/platform/bsd.rs
usr/src/rustc-1.23.0/src/vendor/xattr/src/sys/bsd.rs

These files are just normal rust source files and don't even contain a
license header. I guess lintian is matching on the file name.

X

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 
'testing-debug'), (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable'), 
(100, 'experimental'), (1, 'experimental-debug')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en 
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages lintian depends on:
ii  binutils  2.29.1-13
ii  bzip2 1.0.6-8.1
ii  diffstat  1.61-1+b1
ii  dpkg  1.19.0.4
ii  file  1:5.32-1
ii  gettext   0.19.8.1-4
ii  intltool-debian   0.35.0+20060710.4
ii  libapt-pkg-perl   0.1.33
ii  libarchive-zip-perl   1.60-1
ii  libclass-accessor-perl0.51-1
ii  libclone-perl 0.39-1
ii  libdigest-sha-perl6.01-1
ii  libdpkg-perl  1.19.0.4
ii  libemail-valid-perl   1.202-1
ii  libfile-basedir-perl  0.07-1
ii  libipc-run-perl   0.96-1
ii  liblist-moreutils-perl0.416-1+b3
ii  libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-12
ii  libperl5.26 [libdigest-sha-perl]  5.26.1-3
ii  libtext-levenshtein-perl  0.13-1
ii  libtimedate-perl  2.3000-2
ii  liburi-perl   1.72-2
ii  libxml-simple-perl2.24-1
ii  libyaml-libyaml-perl  0.63-2+b2
ii  man-db2.7.6.1-4
ii  patchutils0.3.4-2
ii  perl  5.26.1-3
ii  t1utils   1.41-2
ii  xz-utils  5.2.2-1.3

Versions of packages lintian recommends:
ii  libperlio-gzip-perl  0.19-1+b4

Versions of packages lintian suggests:
ii  binutils-multiarch 2.29.1-13
ii  dpkg-dev   1.19.0.4
ii  libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3+b2
ii  libtext-template-perl  1.47-1

-- no debconf information