Bug#1073267: RFS: gpp/2.28-2 [ITA] -- general-purpose preprocessor with customizable syntax

Leandro Cunha Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:03:16 -0700

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:16 PM Eriberto <eribe...@eriberto.pro.br> wrote:
>
> 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.
>


The last update to the d/copyright file was reviewed by a Debian
developer in 2018 with the license changes and since then no new
license changes have been repeated. What you mentioned I saw in a new
review (with licensecheck and license-detector) carried out this
evening and new surveys of uploads made since 2004 in the package.
This file you cited has not been changed since then (change in license
text).
I still don't understand the reasons why this passed the review and I
want a response from the person as well.
I'll get in touch later.

See 
https://tracker.debian.org/news/957525/accepted-gpp-225-1-source-amd64-into-unstable/

> > 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.

It just wouldn't have a declared urgency (the change he mentioned),
but that doesn't mean it's being ignored.
It can be improved in the near future and I am very detail oriented to
let certain things go and the package has evolved a lot since I took
over its maintenance along with review work with other DDs.

-- 
Cheers,
Leandro Cunha

Bug#1073267: RFS: gpp/2.28-2 [ITA] -- general-purpose preprocessor with customizable syntax

Reply via email to