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 as unparseable. It >> doesn't seem desirable to me that licensecheck would list files in >> its output that are definitely not going to have embedded >> license/copyright information and whose copyright information must be >> listed elsewhere. >> >> Perhaps we want to make sure the new behavior for licensecheck is >> settled before patching license-reconcile. > > For what it's worth this change of behavior was requested in #794282 > [1]. Jonas explicitly requested licensecheck to parse binary files.
You make it sound like I requested licensecheck to change behaviour, which was not the case. I explicitly requested licensecheck to not change behaviour. It may seem silly for licensecheck to scan binary files like a PNG, but consider hte less obvious example of Postscript code containing plaintext including copyright and licensing info, with embedded binary chunks. Or consider non-Unicde plaintext files where the part flagging it as "it's binary, move along" is the very copyright character! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
