Re: Bug#1073267: RFS: gpp/2.28-2 [ITA] -- general-purpose preprocessor with customizable syntax

Leandro Cunha Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:08:00 -0700

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:08 AM Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 06:32:41PM -0300, Leandro Cunha wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 6:03 PM Phil Wyett <philip.wy...@kathenas.org> 
> > wrote:
> > > 3. Licenses check: ISSUES
> >
> [...]
> > and it is also something maintained upstream.
> [...]
> > I don't really like the idea of changing what is maintained upstream,
>
> There might be a misunderstanding. In my understanding debian/copyright, which
> is maintained in Debian, needs to be modified to match the upstream files.
> Right?


I quote about Lintian's error (acute-accent-in-manpage) in this part.
There is a huge list of packages with this information and it seems to
me that it would even be a false positive until it is validated that
there really is a problem with this. But it seems to me that this
would be ignored for most packages due to the huge list I see in UDD.
See https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag.cgi?tag=acute-accent-in-manual-page

A review with the command below and two review tools on this file done
last night found problems in the copyright file long before the emails
about it were sent here. And I've already contacted the DD who
reviewed the last change to talk about it and see if he can help me
change it. I await responses and a new version of this file is ready
for review. The package had undergone a license big change causing
changes to the file in a version that was sent in 2018 and since then
there have been no changes to the licensing updating only years as was
changed for 2023 in a version from last year.
egrep -sriA25 '(public dom|copyright)' | less

Given the history of this problem, this package would not be the only
one to have this problem and I appeal to Debian Developers to be
careful with this copyright file, knowing its relevance. In quality
assurance work, several cases like this have already been seen and I
analyzed it exactly for that reason.
There's no point in just charging me and leaving a problem like this
since 2018 in the project file. And I'm aware that there are more
packages with this problem, even without being orphaned. And of course
I don't want to cause controversy, but I've already seen it and
changed it to the correct one in a salvage.

--
Cheers,
Leandro Cunha

Re: Bug#1073267: RFS: gpp/2.28-2 [ITA] -- general-purpose preprocessor with customizable syntax

Reply via email to