Bug#1073267: RFS: gpp/2.28-2 [ITA] -- general-purpose preprocessor with customizable syntax
Em qui., 20 de jun. de 2024 às 18:36, Leandro Cunha
<leandrocunha016@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 6:03 PM Phil Wyett <philip.wyett@kathenas.org> wrote:
> >
> > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> >
> > Hi Leandro,
> >
> > Thanks for taking time to create this package and your contribution to Debian.
> >
> > Review...
> >
> > 1. Build: OK
> >
> > 2. Lintian: INFORMATION
> >
> > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1106]
> > N:
> > N: This manual page uses the \' groff sequence. Usually, the intent is to
> > N: generate an apostrophe, but that sequence actually renders as an acute
> > N: accent.
> > N:
> > N: For an apostrophe or a single closing quote, use plain '. For single
> > N: opening quote, i.e. a straight downward line ' like the one used in shell
> > N: commands, use '\(aq'.
> > N:
> > N: In case this tag was emitted for the second half of a '\\' sequence, this
> > N: is indeed no acute accent, but still wrong: A literal backslash should be
> > N: written \e in the groff format, i.e. a '\\' sequence needs to be changed
> > N: to '\e' which also won't trigger this tag.
> > N:
> > N: Please refer to Bug#554897, Bug#507673, and Bug#966803 for details.
> > N:
> > N: Visibility: info
> > N: Show-Always: no
> > N: Check: documentation/manual
> > N: Renamed from: acute-accent-in-manpage
> > N:
> > N:
> > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1119]
> > N:
> > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1133]
> > N:
> > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:483]
> > N:
> > I: gpp source: superficial-tests [debian/tests/control]
> > N:
> > N: The source package declares tests in the debian/tests/control file but
> > N: provides only tests with a superficial restriction.
> > N:
> > N: Please provide more meaningful tests.
> > N:
> > N: Please refer to
> > N: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/08/msg00003.html,
> > N: Bug#932870, and
> > N:
> > https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/tree/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst
> > N: for details.
> > N:
> > N: Visibility: info
> > N: Show-Always: no
> > N: Check: testsuite
> > N:
> >
> > Please consider looking at for a future release/upload.
> >
> > 3. Licenses check: ISSUES
> >
> > philwyett@ks-windu:~/Development/builder/debian/mentoring/gpp-2.28$ lrc
> > en: Versions: recon 1.10.1 check 3.3.9-1
> >
> > Parsing Source Tree ....
> > Reading copyright ....
> > Running licensecheck ....
> >
> > d/copyright | licensecheck
> >
> > LGPL-3 | FSFAP INSTALL
> > LGPL-3 | LGPL-3+ src/gpp.c
> >
> > 4. Build Twice (sudo pbuilder build --twice <package>.dsc): OK
> >
> > 5. Install (No previous installs): OK
> >
> > 6. Upgrade (Over previous installs if any): OK
> >
> > Summary...
> >
> > Please consider addressing the issues raised where applicable and remove the
> > 'moreinfo' tag when doing next/fixed upload.s
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > --
> >
> > Website: https://kathenas.org
> >
> > Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/
> >
> > Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg
>
> This is not included in the backlog of this package at this time. I
> don't consider this something urgent/relevant and it is also something
> maintained upstream.
> The copyright file have already passed through several people and have
> been like this for decades in Debian and there is nothing to be
> changed either.
This is not a good argument to presume that copyright statements are
listed correctly. I already found packages in the main section with
non-free licensing and they were removed from Debian.
The current debian/copyright is wrong and incomplete.
- In revision 2.24-1 (2004), the packaging licensing was LGPL-2.1+,
but in revision 2.24-2 (2010) it was changed to LGPL-2.1 when adopting
DEP-5, without a permission from previous maintainer to change it.
This is a SERIOUS issue and I could open a bug against this mistake.
- The current header of the src/gpp.c is very clear: the main source
code is under LGPL-3+, not LGPL-3.
- There are missing name and dates in debian/* stanza.
- There are missing dates in main stanza.
- The files in doc/ and NEWS use another licensing.
> I don't really like the idea of changing what is maintained upstream,
> now if it was something very wrong and that needed to be changed
> urgently it would have been done in 2020 in the package. :)
I disagree. This package is under ITA tag and it should be revised
fixing all possible issues to show that you have conditions to
maintain it. This is not a trivial QA, but an ITA.
Eriberto
Reply to: