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

Bug#762154: marked as done (lintian: ignore header's license field for missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright ?)

Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2014 22:05:45 +0100
with message-id <CAE2SPAZKJOxspJOpCKTvw1pgWYu24KvAUr-0nHZ2C9B=5jREdw@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line How to solve
has caused the Debian Bug report #762154,
regarding lintian: ignore header's license field for missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright ?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
762154: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762154
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.27
Severity: wishlist

Dear Lintian maintainers,

I have a package where the machine-readable copyright file has the
following licence field in its header.

    License: GPL-2 and MIT and GPL-3+ with runtime exception and zlib
     BEDTools combines source code under GPL-2, LGPL-2.1 and MIT licenses, and
     links to libc6, libgcc, libstdc++ and zlib1g.

It triggers the following warnings

    W: bedtools source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright zlib (paragraph at line 7)
    W: bedtools source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gpl-3+ with runtime exception (paragraph at line 7)
    W: bedtools source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright mit (paragraph at line 7)

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to ignore the license field of the
header for that check.

The alternative would be to add standalone paragraphs for these
licenses, but this would be a lot of “boilerplate” text in the
copyright files…

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

They are a few format problem in your syntax and I think lintian is right here.
So I propose to do the following for the header.

License: bedtools-composite
     GPL-2 and MIT and GPL-3+ with runtime exception and zlib.
     .
     BEDTools combines source code under GPL-2, LGPL-2.1 and MIT licenses, and
     links to libc6, libgcc, libstdc++ and zlib1g.

It will work and is better.

Bastien

--- End Message ---
Reply to: