Re: Bug#907803: closed by Adam Borowski (Re: Bug#907803: RFS: udfclient/0.8.9-1)
Pali Rohár writes: > Ok. So which short names should I use? Because you are describing license texts that are not standard, you get to choose the short name for each one. I would advise choosing names that uniquely characterise each of the different texts you are naming. -- \ “I've always wanted to be somebody, but I see now that I should | `\ have been more specific.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily Tomlin | _o__) | Ben Finney
Bug#907803: closed by Adam Borowski (Re: Bug#907803: RFS: udfclient/0.8.9-1)
On Monday 03 September 2018 01:15:28 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:37:43PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Sunday 02 September 2018 21:33:03 Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > > Nitpick: these warnings are trivial to fix: > > > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause > > > (paragraph at line 37) > > > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause > > > (paragraph at line 62) > > > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-4-clause > > > (paragraph at line 149) > > > so it'd be nice if you could get rid of them in the future. Not an > > > important thing, but less noise is good. > > > > How to fix this problem? There are basically 3 different texts of BSD > > licenses in source files. > > You need to give them unique names. If the body of a license is different, > so must be its short name. > > Yeah, that's somewhat unpleasant, but the reason is obvious. Ok. So which short names should I use? I used "bsd-*-clause" name as described in table at: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com
Bug#907803: closed by Adam Borowski (Re: Bug#907803: RFS: udfclient/0.8.9-1)
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:37:43PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Sunday 02 September 2018 21:33:03 Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Nitpick: these warnings are trivial to fix: > > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause > > (paragraph at line 37) > > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause > > (paragraph at line 62) > > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-4-clause > > (paragraph at line 149) > > so it'd be nice if you could get rid of them in the future. Not an > > important thing, but less noise is good. > > How to fix this problem? There are basically 3 different texts of BSD > licenses in source files. You need to give them unique names. If the body of a license is different, so must be its short name. Yeah, that's somewhat unpleasant, but the reason is obvious. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition: ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal [Mt3:16-17] ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs [Mt14:17-20, Mt15:34-37] ⠈⠳⣄ • use glitches to walk on water [Mt14:25-26]
Bug#907803: closed by Adam Borowski (Re: Bug#907803: RFS: udfclient/0.8.9-1)
On Sunday 02 September 2018 21:33:03 Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Nitpick: these warnings are trivial to fix: > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause > (paragraph at line 37) > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause > (paragraph at line 62) > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-4-clause > (paragraph at line 149) > so it'd be nice if you could get rid of them in the future. Not an > important thing, but less noise is good. How to fix this problem? There are basically 3 different texts of BSD licenses in source files. > Then there are missing man pages... I have already contacted upstream about manpage problems. -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
