Bug#877766: lintian: more false positives in copyright-year-in-future

I see what you mean. Point taken :) On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:43 PM Chris Lamb wrote: > Hi Mattia, > > > Dunno if this is the case, but would be possible to at least keep it for > > some cases > […] > > Whilst this is certainly possible I just can't shake the feeling that >

Bug#877766: lintian: more false positives in copyright-year-in-future

Hi Mattia, > Dunno if this is the case, but would be possible to at least keep it for > some cases […] Whilst this is certainly possible I just can't shake the feeling that this tag isn't actually finding "real" bugs in packages worth of the investment. Sure, a typo of 2117 instead of 2017 is

Bug#877766: lintian: more false positives in copyright-year-in-future

Hi Chris, On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 11:00:15AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > "Fixed" in Git: > > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=b82460be905f860ef0b878b4b927c29ae9535566 Dunno if this is the case, but would be possible to at least keep it for some cases where the

Bug#877766: lintian: more false positives in copyright-year-in-future

tags 877766 + pending thanks "Fixed" in Git: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=b82460be905f860ef0b878b4b927c29ae9535566 Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-

Bug#877766: lintian: more false positives in copyright-year-in-future

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.54 Severity: normal Hi! The new copyright-year-in-future check is very prone to false-positives. And I doesn't feel like white-listing context is the best way to go around this. :/ ISTM that this check should only be performed on the Copyright field for