On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 02:10:06PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 09:33:43AM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:15:59PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:06:18PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > > > * Package name : dwarves-dfsg > > > > Version : 1.12-2 > > > > > * Update copyright to copyright-format/1.0. Closes: #919356. > > > > The new copyright file contains references to GPL-2.0-only and > > > GPL-2.0-or-later without defining them. > > > > According to https://spdx.org/licenses/ they are defined and supersede > > GPL-2 and GPL-2+ now deprecated (maybe I should file a bug). OTOH I'm > > reading that as long as copyright-format is not updated, new ones should > > not be used. > > SPDX has nothing to the copyright-format. The latter doesn't care about > short names at all, merely that 1. every file has a license, and 2. every > license is defined. > > Thus, "GPL-2", "GPL-2+", "GPL-2.0-only", "GPL-2.0-or-later", "Meow-meow" > and "Cthulhu-fhtagn" have exactly the same meaning: they're merely > identifiers that need to be defined elsewhere in the file. Obviously, > for human readers we still want GPL to mean GPL -- but it's a syntax vs > content distinction. Got it, in my mind the two things were related. There is even a paragraph that says "For SPDX compatibility, versions with trailing dot-zeroes are considered to be equivalent to versions without (e.g., “2.0.0” is considered equal to “2.0” and “2”)." but I cannot ignore the one saying: "Use of a standard short name does not override the Debian Policy requirement to include the full license text in debian/copyright, nor any requirements in the license of the work regarding reproduction of legal notices. This information must still be included in the License field, either in a stand-alone License paragraph or in the relevant files paragraph." > > I spent quite some time in trying to understand what lintian tries > > to tell me here. I verified that reshuffling the file does not help > > either, these errors stay in a similar location, as if lintian had some > > bug somewhere. > > "references a license, for which no standalone license paragraph exists" I evidently read too little and assumed too much. > > I'm uploaded a new version with GPL-2/GPL-2+, should be available shortly. > > I don't see it on mentors yet... I rewrote history and pushed a new 1.12-2 release to mentors. Thanks again for the feedback. Regards, Domenico -- 3B10 0CA1 8674 ACBA B4FE FCD2 CE5B CF17 9960 DE13
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature