[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages containing RFCs



Riku Voipio <rvoipio+debian@movial.fi> writes:

> On Friday 28 April 2006 13:34, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> The following packages appear to contain IETF RFCs/drafts, and I'll
>> file bug reports for them:
>
> As per good mass filing practices, can you create a linda/lintian test out of
> your method you used to search for the rfc's ? This would have several
> advantages: 
>
> 1) Active maintainers will fix the problem before you start your mass filing.
> 2) It will be harder to accidentally re-introduce the rfc files when upstream 
> releases new tarballs, or when new packages are added to archive.

Good idea!

My method was to look for files named ^.*/rfc[0-9]+.(html|txt)(.gz)?$.

I think the patch to lintian below achieve this, but I have no idea
whether it is a good idea.  I'll report this to as a lintian bug.

/Simon

--- files.orig	2006-04-28 16:07:01.000000000 +0200
+++ files	2006-04-28 16:07:20.000000000 +0200
@@ -464,6 +464,11 @@
 	tag "extra-license-file", "$file";
     }
 
+    # ---------------- non-free RFC files
+    if ($file =~ m,.*/rfc[0-9]+(\.(txt|html(\.gz|\.bz2)?))?$,i) {
+	tag "non-free-rfc-file", "$file";
+    }
+
 
     # ---------------- plain files
     if ($perm =~ m/^-/) {
--- files.desc.orig	2006-04-28 16:07:06.000000000 +0200
+++ files.desc	2006-04-28 16:05:11.000000000 +0200
@@ -352,6 +352,14 @@
  <tt>debian/copyright</tt> file.  This usually makes it unnecessary
  for the package to install this information in other places as well.
 
+Tag: non-free-rfc-file
+Type: warning
+Ref: policy 2.2
+Info: This filename looks like an IETF RFC.  The IETF RFCs are not
+ licensed under a DFSG free license, so they should not be part of
+ packages in main.  See also <a href="http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation";><tt>
+ http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation</tt></a>.
+
 Tag: non-standard-toplevel-dir
 Type: error
 Info: The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard forbids the installation of new



Reply to: