Bug#769818: Re: Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Bug#769818: Re: Bug#769818: Bug#766118: lintian: False positive for “missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright”
- From: Martin Erik Werner <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:55:46 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Martin Erik Werner <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <CAE2SPAa9hMy47u83NxnsBs1sRif8bsfMmXu6Yu1D=b=sdKWcew@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <551F6CD6.email@example.com> <20150418062518.GJ8414@falafel.plessy.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:12:06 -0400 =?UTF-8?Q?David_Pr=c3=a9vot?= <
> I assumed what lintian is actually pointing is the missing â€œFiles:
> paragraph (instead of inaccurately using the header paragraph to
> document the main license), or any variant of it (e.g., documenting
> every files or directories in their own â€œFilesâ€ paragraph, as
> already is).
This is not the case though, since even if a Files: * field is present,
this warning was triggered.
In newer versions of lintian, this warning has changed, so the
This is dog license
This is other license
W: cn source: dep5-file-paragraph-reference-header-paragraph dog
(paragraph at line 7)
Which is as far as I see still the same false positive.
Martin Erik Werner <email@example.com>