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

Re: copyright files can be generated by cme (was Re: Copyright file granularity)



On Saturday 14 November 2015 16:02:18 Neil Williams wrote:
> scan-copyrights must get much better handling of non-text formats.
> I tried it with a package containing a lot of png files, the example at
> the top of the manpage failed because the output of scan-copyrights was
> a binary file. (It's a text-like file which contains binary snippets
> pretending to be copyright information.)

scan-copyright uses licensecheck which has some trouble recently to handle 
files with binary. This issue is tracked by  #803724.

> So no, detailed copyright files for non-trivial packages cannot be
> generated and the tools produce nothing close to the required result.
> Trivial packages don't need generation.
> 
> It's not that neither tool is perfect, neither tool seems to have been
> tried with actual packages that may need the tool.

I tried 'cme update dpkg' on moarvm, libtommath, pan and sdl2. 
Here's a result:
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-rakudo/pkg-moarvm.git/tree/debian/copyright

Unfortunately, the latest changes in licensecheck indeed broke scan-
copyrights.

> Even with a trivial package, scan-copyrights produces output which
> if used as debian/copyright would get rejected by lintian and ftpmaster.

What trivial package ? I can't fix bugs without details.

> Much more work needs to be done, 

You're right. Especially with licensecheck. I've tried to improve licensecheck 
to better cope with encoding using `file` to detect mime type. 

But your mail show that this approach fails. Looks like `file` does not cope 
with with ascii file embeding binary or with several encodings. 

I need to rework licensecheck. I'll probably revert my changes and let user 
deal with inconsistent encodings in owners names.

All the best

-- 
 https://github.com/dod38fr/   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/
http://ddumont.wordpress.com/  -o-   irc: dod at irc.debian.org


Reply to: