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

Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”



Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.28
Severity: normal

The check for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright” apparently
assumes that any license must have its own separate “License”
paragraph.

This restriction does not match Debian policy for the DEP-5 format;
the stand-alone “License” paragraph is not required, since the full
license terms can be in the “Files” paragraph in its “License” field.

An example of a package where this check is giving a false positive is
<URL:https://lintian.debian.org/full/ben+debian@benfinney.id.au.html#lojban-common_1.5_x2bdfsg.1-2>.
Each “License” field contains the full license information, and no
separate “License” paragraph is needed. The Lintian tag
“missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright” should not be triggered
when this is the case.

-- 
 \     “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Uh, I think so, |
  `\      Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... ooh, it's all |
_o__)                         too much for me.” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: