Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-18 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Ben Finney wrote: Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes: Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary, duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff? I think they lead to widely-used, persistent overrides, and I think such

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-18 Thread Ben Finney
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes: Usually an override is a fail in the maintainer's brain or a bug in lintian. Only in rare cases overrides are the right way to go. Yes, that's pretty much my point: that *if* a Lintian check leads to many maintainers adding an override for that tag that

License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread W. Martin Borgert
Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect: /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN /usr/share/pyshared/cups-1.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN /usr/share/pyshared/Django-1.1.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN /usr/share/pyshared/git_build_package-0.0.0.egg-info:License:

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Ben Finney
W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org writes: Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect: /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN /usr/share/pyshared/cups-1.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN […] /usr/share/pyshared/spambayes-1.0.4.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Jakub Wilk
* W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org, 2009-10-17, 13:23: Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect: /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN [snip] I'm too lazy right now to file bugs It would be better to file a bug against lintian to have a check for

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Ben Finney
Jakub Wilk uba...@users.sf.net writes: * W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org, 2009-10-17, 13:23: /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN It would be better to file a bug against lintian to have a check for such issues. I disagree. This issue in the ‘setup.py’ settings is

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: I disagree. This issue in the ‘setup.py’ settings is upstream's responsibility. Lintian is best reserved for reporting problems that are the Debian package maintainer's responsibility. Do you object to

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread W. Martin Borgert
On 2009-10-17 23:59, Ben Finney wrote: So currently I don't think they are bugs of any severity above ‘minor’. I agree, that this is 'minor' or even 'wishlist'. Presumably all these are created by upstream ‘setup.py’ settings, so it would ultimately be for upstream to fix in each case. The

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Ben Finney
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes: Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary, duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff? I think they lead to widely-used, persistent overrides, and I think such overrides are an

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread W. Martin Borgert
On 2009-10-18 09:46, Ben Finney wrote: I don't have a strong objection in this case, and I can see good arguments for and against a Lintian check. I wouldn't put up a fight either way :-) Me neither, it's certainly one of the least pressing issues we have with Debian Python :~) -- To

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes: Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary, duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff? I think they