Em qui., 20 de jun. de 2024 às 18:36, Leandro Cunha <leandrocunha...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 6:03 PM Phil Wyett <philip.wy...@kathenas.org> wrote: > > > > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > > > Hi Leandro, > > > > Thanks for taking time to create this package and your contribution to > > Debian. > > > > Review... > > > > 1. Build: OK > > > > 2. Lintian: INFORMATION > > > > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1106] > > N: > > N: This manual page uses the \' groff sequence. Usually, the intent is to > > N: generate an apostrophe, but that sequence actually renders as an acute > > N: accent. > > N: > > N: For an apostrophe or a single closing quote, use plain '. For single > > N: opening quote, i.e. a straight downward line ' like the one used in > > shell > > N: commands, use '\(aq'. > > N: > > N: In case this tag was emitted for the second half of a '\\' sequence, > > this > > N: is indeed no acute accent, but still wrong: A literal backslash should > > be > > N: written \e in the groff format, i.e. a '\\' sequence needs to be > > changed > > N: to '\e' which also won't trigger this tag. > > N: > > N: Please refer to Bug#554897, Bug#507673, and Bug#966803 for details. > > N: > > N: Visibility: info > > N: Show-Always: no > > N: Check: documentation/manual > > N: Renamed from: acute-accent-in-manpage > > N: > > N: > > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1119] > > N: > > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1133] > > N: > > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:483] > > N: > > I: gpp source: superficial-tests [debian/tests/control] > > N: > > N: The source package declares tests in the debian/tests/control file but > > N: provides only tests with a superficial restriction. > > N: > > N: Please provide more meaningful tests. > > N: > > N: Please refer to > > N: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/08/msg00003.html, > > N: Bug#932870, and > > N: > > https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/tree/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst > > N: for details. > > N: > > N: Visibility: info > > N: Show-Always: no > > N: Check: testsuite > > N: > > > > Please consider looking at for a future release/upload. > > > > 3. Licenses check: ISSUES > > > > philwyett@ks-windu:~/Development/builder/debian/mentoring/gpp-2.28$ lrc > > en: Versions: recon 1.10.1 check 3.3.9-1 > > > > Parsing Source Tree .... > > Reading copyright .... > > Running licensecheck .... > > > > d/copyright | licensecheck > > > > LGPL-3 | FSFAP INSTALL > > LGPL-3 | LGPL-3+ src/gpp.c > > > > 4. Build Twice (sudo pbuilder build --twice <package>.dsc): OK > > > > 5. Install (No previous installs): OK > > > > 6. Upgrade (Over previous installs if any): OK > > > > Summary... > > > > Please consider addressing the issues raised where applicable and remove the > > 'moreinfo' tag when doing next/fixed upload.s > > > > Phil > > > > -- > > > > Website: https://kathenas.org > > > > Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/ > > > > Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg > > This is not included in the backlog of this package at this time. I > don't consider this something urgent/relevant and it is also something > maintained upstream. > The copyright file have already passed through several people and have > been like this for decades in Debian and there is nothing to be > changed either.
This is not a good argument to presume that copyright statements are listed correctly. I already found packages in the main section with non-free licensing and they were removed from Debian. The current debian/copyright is wrong and incomplete. - In revision 2.24-1 (2004), the packaging licensing was LGPL-2.1+, but in revision 2.24-2 (2010) it was changed to LGPL-2.1 when adopting DEP-5, without a permission from previous maintainer to change it. This is a SERIOUS issue and I could open a bug against this mistake. - The current header of the src/gpp.c is very clear: the main source code is under LGPL-3+, not LGPL-3. - There are missing name and dates in debian/* stanza. - There are missing dates in main stanza. - The files in doc/ and NEWS use another licensing. > I don't really like the idea of changing what is maintained upstream, > now if it was something very wrong and that needed to be changed > urgently it would have been done in 2020 in the package. :) I disagree. This package is under ITA tag and it should be revised fixing all possible issues to show that you have conditions to maintain it. This is not a trivial QA, but an ITA. Eriberto
