Thoughts below
On 19. 11. 15 16:33, Dominique Dumont wrote:
On Wednesday 18 November 2015 21:08:04 Nicholas Bamber wrote:
1.) Your thoughts on #472199? My reading of the bug report is you have
no interest in this as you provide the functionality in cme. On the
other hand I'd quite like something in this direction as this would
remove the need to map between the legacy licensecheck format and DEP-5
format.
It would be relatively easy to modify licensecheck to output DEP-5 format
instead of the current format.
First of all I think backwards compatibility should be maintained so any
change should be an option.
But who would want a dep-5 file with one paragraph per scanned file ?
I was only asking about the translation of the license tags?
But then if you translate the license tags it would cost nothing to go
to a crude bloated DEP-5 format. But since I think we agree that we do
not wish to attempt to make licensecheck to produce "good" DEP-5 it
might be best to avoid moving it in that direction.
That would create huge output for big packages.
yes this would be prompt people to raise wishlist bugs for
consolidation. slippery slope.
If you mean producing license tags in dep5 format (i.e. "gpl-2", "gpl-2+").
Then yes, I think this should be done in licensecheck, but doing so without
yet another option may break current tools (e.g. ghostscript package).
Yes. Still I can't make my mind up.
Agreed. I think that #472199 should be tagged wontfix or its title should be
changed to "need a tool to create dep-5 file from source file".
scan-copyrights does this work. I'm fine with extracting it from libconfig-
model-dpkg-perl once it has stabilized enough.
All the best
done!
I am slightly puzzled why
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=519080 is a wishlist
bug and not a full blown bug.
