Re: Review of new lintian tag
[Google noticed you were plotting against them, so Gmail filed your
message under "Spam"!]
bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> +Tag: license-problem-non-free-RFC-BCP78
> +Severity: serious
> +Certainty: possible
> +Info: The given source file is licensed under the newer RFC
> + license (BCP78).
> + .
> + The majority of IETF documents, such as RFCs, are not licensed
> + under DFSG-free terms, and should thus not be included in Debian main.
> + .
> + If this file is multi-licensed, please override the tag.
> + .
> + If this is a false-positive, please report a bug against Lintian.
> +Ref: https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
This doesn't exactly make it clear: is BCP78 the license that the
non-free majority of IETF documents are under? What is it newer than?
Just the old public-domain-by-default license? (Does it matter?)
It might be clearer (assuming it's equally true) to say:
Info: The given source file is licensed under the non-free RFC
license (BCP78).
.
The majority of newer IETF documents, such as RFCs, are not [...]
> +Tag: license-problem-gfdl-non-official-text
> +Severity: pedantic
> +Certainty: possible
> +Info: The given source file is licensed under GFDL, but using a non
> + official text for the no invariant part.
hyphenate "non-official", and rephrase the last part:
Info: The given source file is licensed under GFDL, but using a
non-official text for the "no invariant sections" part.
> + .
> + Please ask upstream to always use (case insensitive):
> + with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> +
> +Tag: source-is-missing
> +Severity: serious
> +Certainty: possible
> +Info: The source of the following file is missing. Lintian checked a few
> + possible path to found the source, and do not find it.
^ XX X
Info: The source of the following file is missing. Lintian checked a few
possible paths to find the source, and did not find it.
> + .
> + Please repack your package to include the source or add it to
> + debian/missing-sources dir.
Presumably that's "add it to the debian/missing-sources directory"
(does this mean as a patch?)
> + .
> + If this is a false-positive, please report a bug against Lintian.
>
>
> Info: This package creates a potential privacy breach by fetching data
> from an external website at runtime. Please remove these scripts or
> external HTML resources.
> + .
> + Please replace any scripts, images or other remote resources with
^
Strict d-l-e house style would add a "Harvard comma" after "images",
but if other lintian messages leave this out then it consistency is
best.
> + non-remote resources. It is preferrable to replace them with text and
preferable
(Global search-and-replace to catch repeated cases with this text)
[...]
> +Tag: privacy-breach-google-plus
> +Severity: serious
> +Certainty: possible
> +Info: This package creates a potential privacy breach by
> + exchanging data with google+ at runtime via plugins such
> + as "+1" buttons.
s/google+/Google+/
and likewise
[...]
> +Tag: privacy-breach-twitter
> +Severity: serious
> +Certainty: possible
> +Info: This package creates a potential privacy breach by
> + exchanging data with twitter at runtime via plugins.
s/twitter/Twitter/
[...]
> Tag: privacy-breach-piwik
> Severity: serious
> Certainty: possible
> -Info: This package creates a privacy breach by using Piwik.
> +Info: This package creates a privacy breach by using an online
> + Piwik module.
> + .
> Piwik is a free and open source web analytics application, designed to
> allow publishers of websites to track visitors.
> .
> Even though Piwik is free and respects the "Do Not Track" browser
> - option, it is nevertheless a breach of the privacy of web users.
> + option, it is nevertheless a breach of the privacy of web users,
> + by fetching data from internet.
That "by" phrase needs a verb, and "a breach" won't do, but this will:
> option, it nevertheless breaches the privacy of web users by
> fetching data from the Internet.
[...]
> Tag: privacy-breach-w3c-valid-html
> Severity: serious
> @@ -1025,12 +1106,12 @@ Info: This package creates a potential privacy breach by fetching W3C
> validation icons.
> .
> These badges may be displayed to tell readers that care has been
> - taken to make a page compliant with W3C standards. Unfortunately,
> + taken to make a page compliant with W3C standards. Unfortunately,
X
> downloading the image from www.w3.org might expose the reader's IP
> address to potential tracking.
> .
> Note that these icons are non-free and must not be copied into the
> - package. You could safely delete this W3C validation badge.
> + package. You could safely delete this W3C validation badge.
X
Again the d-l-e house style is singlespacing, and that seems to be
what you're using elsewhere too, so I'd recommend reverting these.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: