Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: > That said, you are welcome to try nudge me if some concrete task > emerges where you image I might be of help.
Thanks -- I'm moving this out of 921954@bugs and cc'ing debian-devel to allow others to help and to allow you from not having to feel a need to reply at all :) One of the things that bothered me with the gnulib Debian package that I've been too afraid to touch is the debian/copyright file. It triggers a lot of lintian errors: https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?packages=gnulib For reference here is current debian/copyright: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gnulib/-/blob/debian/sid/debian/copyright I've seen debian/clscan/ and ran the tools there, but I don't yet feel comfortable patching things, and it didn't produce clean results even for the last version in testing before I started to work on this package, so I'm not convinced this toolchain is the best approach going forward. One problem is that lintian doesn't like [REF01] in lines like this: License: FSFAP [REF01] Is the reason why this is done that you want to record a full copy of the actual text from the particular file AND some more information? Sometimes there is a file X with the FSFAP license and some additional text not part of the core FSFAP license, and another file Y that also uses FSFAP but has some OTHER additional text that you want to record? In some other packages, I've used the Comment: field like this for situations like that. Maybe it is applicable here? Files: * Copyright: 2016 Google LLC. All Rights Reserved. 2022 Trillian Authors. All Rights Reserved. 2016 The Kubernetes Authors. 2017 Google LLC. All Rights Reserved. License: Apache-2.0 Comment: Quoting AUTHORS: # This is the official list of benchmark authors for copyright purposes. Antonio Marcedone <a.marced...@gmail.com> Google LLC Internet Security Research Group Vishal Kuo <vishal...@gmail.com> The idea is that from a legal perspective, the copyright notices and keywords 'FSFAP' and 'Apache-2.0' with full text copy of the license is sufficient documentation. However, for reasons like proper attribution and having more background information, it is useful to say something more than what's legally required, including properly quoting the relevant files. I think the Comment: section makes for a better place than License: fields for this. Does anyone have other advice related to gnulib's debian/copyright file? I have yet to fully get a grip on how this file should best reflect reality for a complex package like gnulib, but will try to do my best to resolve lintian complaints and keep it accurate and maintainable. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
