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

Bug#649679: [copyright-format] Clarify what distinguishes files and stand-alone license paragraphs.



On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:34:24AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>, 2011-12-19, 10:12:
> >Of course, I agree that making a stand-alone License paragraph
> >with an extra Fiels field would be an horror. But I am inclined to
> >think that it is obvious enough that we do not need to constrain
> >the syntax. With the change you propose extra checks are needed
> >while parsing.

> I thought it was obvious when I implemented lintian checks, but it
> turns out to not be so easy after all.

> The problem is with paragraphs like this:
> | Copyright: 2042, J. Random Hacker
> | License: BSD-6-clauses
> |  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> |  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> |  are met: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and blah.

> In early DEP-5 drafts, Files field could be ommited in certain
> circumstances, so this could have been a perfectly valid files
> paragraph. But with the current DEP-5 version, if we allow any extra
> fields, this suddenly becomes a valid stand-alone license paragraph.

> Please see bug #652380 for a real-world example.

Meh.  When someone writes their debian/copyright with this line at the top:

  Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5

then they have no business complaining when parsers and validators reject
the file as not being compliant with the current version of the spec.

More to the point, lintian should *not* be trying to accept such files on
the basis that this was once considered valid.  Lintian should be enforcing
the current spec on anything that claims to be a DEP5 file, not trying to
support all kinds of intermediate forms as "valid".

Now if there were a Format: line at the top pointing at a url that lintian
doesn't know about, it would be reasonable to skip the rest and simply note
that an unrecognized format is being used.  But when the file says it's
using DEP-5, it should be DEP-5.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: