Your message dated Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:06:52 +0200
with message-id <20140410140652.gb15...@rene-engelhard.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#744127: missing license in debian/copyright
has caused the Debian Bug report #744127,
regarding missing license in debian/copyright
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
744127: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=744127
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: liborcus
Version: 0.7.0+dfsg-2
Severity: serious
User: alteh...@debian.org
Usertags: ftp
X-Debbugs-CC: ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org
thanks
Dear Maintainer,
please add the missing licenses of:
liborcus-0.7.0+dfsg/misc/*
liborcus-0.7.0+dfsg/src/parser/win_stdint.h
to debian/copyright or at least take care of:
W: liborcus source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright bsd (paragraph
at line 353)
Thanks!
Thorsten
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 03:44:13PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> please add the missing licenses of:
> liborcus-0.7.0+dfsg/misc/*
Files: misc/*.py
Copyright: Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Kohei Yoshida
License: BSD
> liborcus-0.7.0+dfsg/src/parser/win_stdint.h to debian/copyright or
> at least take care of:
*shrugs*. The license is there. it's BSD. (yes, the author is missing, indeed)
> W: liborcus source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright bsd
> (paragraph at line 353)
It is BSD. And no, I will ignore this. That one's a standard license.
hat one is lintian bullshit.
Would you also file this bug if this wasn't a DEP-5 (I don't care about the
machine-readability of copyright, just that format is more understandable even
to humans) and I just wrote "the full text of the license is at $foobar?).
But yeah, I probably should add that...
And: This is no new release but identical to 0.7.0-1 which _you_ accepted
and already filed a serious bug on. Neither is this bug "serious" at all,
and neither is any license not mentioned. You can argue about the completeness
*authors/copyright* holders or *license text*, not of licenses.
(btw, this hasn't changed to 0.7.0-1 which you let though without commenting
on those. There misc/* was not mentioned at all where it now is and win_stdint.h
was not mentioned either.)
For that reason I close this bug. If you insist that this warrants a bug
please file a new one with proper severity.
Regards,
Rene
--- End Message ---
