Hi Jonas,
On 6/16/21 2:50 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Walter Lozano (2021-06-16 04:12:23)
On 6/15/21 9:17 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Walter Lozano (2021-06-15 20:42:53)
As as user of licensecheck I found it does not provide
deterministic results on some circumstances. And example of this is
gnutls28/m4/ax_code_coverage.m4 which is detected as UNKNOWN or
LGPL.
After some debugging I found that the root cause could be in
libregexp-pattern-license-perl, I have proposed a fix which you
can find in
https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libregexp-pattern-license-
perl/-/merge_requests/1
I hope you can help me to clarify this issue.
Great - thanks a lot!
I suspect that this might be bug#982849.
Yes, it looks exactly the same issue I faced. I hope you can confirm
and fix it
I will certainly do that.
In relation to this, I find that the problem is more evident at least
after these commits, which are related to versioning
* eddc64dd1f0e6f9bd1769ef580a217aa4be762b8 (synthesize subject pattern
name: optimize version matching)
* cd75d77da201260bc9deef4631d5c4d3a42fa41d (add license patterns
lgpl_2 lgpl-2_1 lgpl-3)
I hope this information is useful.
Please keep all conversation about the bug here - *not* at salsa.
Perfect, I will do that. To be honest I was not sure how to submit the
proposed fix, I also tried to submitted directly to
https://salsa.debian.org/build-common-team/regexp-pattern-license
but I was not able to see a way to send a MR.
Please advice what is the best way to contribute.
Sorry, I am aware that reporting issues can be confusing, and am happy
that you figured out _some_ way to get your findings across.
I use salsa.debian.org as a place to publicly store the git repo but
*not* to track issues or negotiate change proposals or run continuous
integration tests or any other of the many things that Gitlab can do.
I use bugs.debian.org to track issues.
Best way to report and discuss issues is to use bugs.debian.org, and
best way to propose a change is to attach a patch to an email sent to an
issue tracked in bugs.debian.org.
As you are already aware, some parts of Licensecheck is maintained in
other libraries. Git repos exist separately for Debian packaging and
upstream development of these libraries, but that should not matter for
issue tracking.
E.g. https://metacpan.org/dist/App-Licensecheck/view/bin/licensecheck
and https://metacpan.org/dist/App-Licensecheck links to
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=licensecheck for issue
reporting, and https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting covers issue
reporting in Debian.
I find it unhelpful that salsa.debian.org by default enables duplicate
issue tracking services, and I disable those to limit the risk of
confusion - but sometimes I forget that, and also sometimes others that
I collaborate with may disagree and (re)enable them.
If you have suggestions for ways I could maybe improve communicating how
to best report issues, then please do share.
Thanks for clarifying, and for taking the time to investigate the issue.
Next time I will send you a patch as an attachment.
Regards,
Walter
