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

Bug#690665: marked as done (lintian: Ignore licenses that are not used)

Your message dated Fri, 24 Jul 2020 04:18:41 -0700
with message-id <CAFHYt54M020p+fTeRSJFTH=n9FmnEFgGb-RT0FzRPhD+cFPQqQ@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line lintian: Ignore licenses that are not used
has caused the Debian Bug report #690665,
regarding lintian: Ignore licenses that are not used
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.)


-- 
690665: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690665
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.10.2
Severity: wishlist

"love" gives some lintian warnings, because of the following paragraph
in its copyright file:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
    Warning: CPL is NOT compatible with GNU's General Public License,
    but that isn't be a problem in this case, because LÖVE doesn't use
    anything covered by that license.
    .
    List of libraries and tools used by LÖVE:
    * Lua (MIT)
    * OpenGL
    * SDL (LGPL)
    * SDL_mixer (LGPL)
    * FreeType 2 (FTL)
    * DevIL (LGPL)
    * PhysFS (ZLIB)
    * Box2D (ZLIB)
    * boost (BSL)
    * SWIG (BSD)
------------------------------------------------------------------

Lintian says: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-lgpl
I could refer to it, which I think is not really useful in this case
(there's no reason to include (a link to) the license text in this
case), but even if I would, it wouldn't solve the problem: then it
complains that I shouldn't use an unversioned reference to it. It makes
even less sense to add a versioned reference.

Lintian should only emit this warning if the license is actually used by
the package, which means there must be a ^License: LGPL.*$ (and similar
for other shared-licenses) line, not just any occurrence of the license
name. This is true for DEP-5 files, anyway. If a non-DEP-5 file needs to
get this fixed, converting them to DEP-5 should be the answer. That only
works if lintian doesn't complain in cases like this one. :-)

So my suggestion is: make this test only trigger for License lines in
case of DEP-5 files, and add a notice about this in the explanation.

Thanks,
Bas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


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

> "love" gives some lintian warnings, because of the following paragraph
> in its copyright file:
>
> Lintian says: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-lgpl

The love packages switched to a DEP-5 copyright [1] and no longer
provokes the tag. Lintian's current output is below.

[1] https://sources.debian.org/src/love/11.3-1/debian/copyright/

At the same time, your filing identifies a broader shortcoming of the
old copyright format. Maybe full-text searches will become more
powerful in the future, but for now people are choosing the new
machine-readable format instead. In unstable, the adoption rate for
the DEP-5 copyright exceeds 86 percent. [2]

[2] https://trends.debian.net/#copyright-format-machine-readable-dep-5-vs-old-format

>From Lintian's perspective, there is not much we can do. Current
algorithms are not good enough to avoid the kind of misidentification
you described. Despite the ongoing discussion inside Debian, we also
believe the plain old copyright format is on the way out.

Closing this bug.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

* * *

I: love source: quilt-patch-missing-description configure.patch
I: love source: send-patch debian/patches/fix-freetype-includes.patch
P: love source: maintainer-desktop-entry debian/love.desktop
P: love source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 12

--- End Message ---
Reply to: