On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:48:56PM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> 2.) I think what Steve meant to do was clone #801609, retitle and reassign
> the clone to devscripts. That's reasonable as there may well be more work to
> do.
No, that is not what I meant to do.
The behavior of devscripts has
On Saturday 31 October 2015 21:53:43 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> You make it sound like I requested licensecheck to change behaviour,
> which was not the case.
That was not my intent. Sorry about that.
> I explicitly requested licensecheck to not change behaviour.
Yes. And I now understand what
On Sunday 01 November 2015 18:59:25 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Jonas, do you agree with this proposal ?
>
> If you mean to *not* apply filter when user has explicitly instructed
> what files to work on (by use of regex), then I am in favor.
Could you provide some example of licensecheck
Quoting Dominique Dumont (2015-11-01 19:07:56)
> On Sunday 01 November 2015 18:59:25 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Jonas, do you agree with this proposal ?
>>
>> If you mean to *not* apply filter when user has explicitly instructed
>> what files to work on (by use of regex), then I am in favor.
>
>
Quoting Dominique Dumont (2015-11-01 17:57:41)
> Old licensecheck scanned any file (including binary) when licensecheck
> was run with either of the following arguments:
> - a single file
> - one or more files matching a regexp passed to --check option
>
> On the other hand, licensecheck
On 01/11/15 18:07, Dominique Dumont wrote:
On Sunday 01 November 2015 18:59:25 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Jonas, do you agree with this proposal ?
If you mean to *not* apply filter when user has explicitly instructed
what files to work on (by use of regex), then I am in favor.
Could you
On Friday 30 October 2015 10:58:55 Steve Langasek wrote:
> But I'm also marking this as affects: devscripts, because I find it
> surprising that the new licensecheck output includes a line for sample.png,
> when the file was explicitly reported as unparseable. It doesn't seem
> desirable to me
Quoting Dominique Dumont (2015-10-31 20:41:18)
> On Friday 30 October 2015 10:58:55 Steve Langasek wrote:
>> But I'm also marking this as affects: devscripts, because I find it
>> surprising that the new licensecheck output includes a line for
>> sample.png, when the file was explicitly reported
I have had another think and I would like to make the folloiwng points.
1.) license-reconcile is an experimental package and not at all critical
to Debian. Unlike decscripts so something is a really wrong if a bug in
license-reconcile affects devscripts.
2.) I think what Steve meant to do was
I am working on this in license-reconcile. However I really don't see
how this could affect devscripts. devscripts is a core package,
license-reconcile is no such thing,
On 30/10/15 17:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
Control: affects -1 devscripts
We are seeing this same failure in Ubuntu
Control: affects -1 devscripts
We are seeing this same failure in Ubuntu following the update of devscripts
to 2.15.9. The change causing the failure is that licensecheck -r no longer
filters based on filenames, instead filtering only on mime types; and so
instead of returning copyright results
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:36:11PM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> I am working on this in license-reconcile. However I really don't see how
> this could affect devscripts. devscripts is a core package,
> license-reconcile is no such thing,
I thought my reasoning was rather clear:
> >But I'm
Looking at https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects you are
implying that the bug in license-reconcile impacts licensecheck. How is
that possible? Noone in devscripts should care (at the moment at least)
if licensecheck was removed from Debian entirely.
On 30/10/15 19:37, Steve
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:49:29 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> Package: license-reconcile
> Version: 0.7
> Severity: serious
> User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Usertags: ftbfs
>
> As noticed by the reproducible.debian.net CI setup, this package
> fails to build on current sid:
>
>
Package: license-reconcile
Version: 0.7
Severity: serious
User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
As noticed by the reproducible.debian.net CI setup, this package
fails to build on current sid:
# Failed test at t/09-licensecheck.t line 20.
# Compared
15 matches
Mail list logo
