Hi Gianfranco, Am Fri, 29 May 2015 09:06:58 +0100 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: >I guess LGPL is not a license, but a *set* of licenses. > > >Maybe you mean something like LGPL-2.1+ or whatever is appropriate >there (look for the "later" word, licensecheck might help too) Thanks, that brought me to the point: I was referencing LGPL-2.1 under common-licenses, but stated LGPL without version as the license. Lintian got rightfully confused by that. ;-) Greetings, Marcel
Attachment:
pgpYNMkrgtwVt.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature