On Saturday, April 11, 2020 11:41:50 AM EDT Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2020-04-11 16:47:13) > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2020-04-11 10:36:44) > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:43:17PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > > Debian: > > > > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/g/gtk%2B4.0/copyright-3.98 > > > > > .0-1 > > > > > plus we ship the LGPL in base-files' common-licenses. > > > > > > > > This kind of insanity is actually why I refuse to use the > > > > machine-parseable copyright format. > > > > > > > > Nobody cares that some file somewhere deep down in the source tree > > > > is perhams maybe somewhat more permissive than the license on the > > > > whole. If the license on the whole is a copyleft license, then > > > > that file somewhere deep down is made available to you as that > > > > copyleft license, due to "copyleft". > > > > > > > > Anything else is insanity, and I refuse to waste my time on it. > > > > > > You seem to conflate two issues: > > > > > > a) writing debian/copyright in a machine-parsable format > > > b) writing debian/copyright with too much detail included > > > > > > Please use the machine-readable format because then machines can > > > help us. If you find it insane how detailed machine-readable format > > > _can_ be, then please use the format _without_ the insanity. > > > > My point is that the machine-readable format is being "abused" to > > deep-check the copyright status of all the files, and to reject > > stuff/file bugs/... based on that. > > Abuse is seriously bad. Not sure what you mean by "abuse" in quotes, > though, so let me try break it apart. Please tell me if I totally > missed what you tried to say (I genuinely want to understand, not mock). > > Real bugs should be identified and reported, and using machine-readable > data to aid in that is great. Or do you disagree with that? > > Filing bugreports for non-bugs is wrong, and doing it in automated ways > (e.g. by use of machine-readable data) is abuse (unquoted) and should be > stopped - regardless of who does it. If that's what you are talking > about, then could you perhaps point at some examples that might help > identify a pattern for countering such abuse? > > Since it keeps coming up that ftpmasters rejects for wrong reasons: > Assuming good faith, I can only imagine it be _rumors_ only, stemming > from a) clumsy behaviours in past dark ages and/or b) misinterpretation > of rejection messages. Therefore: Please if anyone can shed more light > on such rumors(!) please do - e.g. share recent(!) rejection emails > showing it is fact, not rumor. It's nonsense. There is zero difference in what's accepted or not based on if the machine readable copyright format is used. We may point out errors in use of the machine readable format, but it's not a criteria for rejection since its use is optional (note: there may have been occasional instances of this when combined with other problems). Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.