On 11-05-03 at 05:12pm, Olivier Aubert wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 17:02 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-05-03 at 02:35pm, Olivier Aubert wrote: > > > When new copyright information is detected by licensecheck, the > > > displayed procedure advises to compare/replace copyright_hints > > > with copyright_newhints. However, if COPYRIGHT_CHECK_STRICT is not > > > set, the copyright_newhints is removed in all cases, which makes > > > the file unavailable for further processing. > > > > > The proposed patch removes the copyright_newhints only if there is > > > no further processing to do. > > > > CDBS previously behaved like your patch proposes, but was changed as > > the "clean" target must properly clean - i.e. not leave behind any > > noise. > Then why not simply > rm debian/copyright_newhints > in the clean target?
Hmm - that sounds more elegant indeed. > > So i doubt the patch is really sensible. Or that this really is a > > problem, other than one of improving documentation. > The problem is that for the moment, the message is misleading: a > message indicating "Fully compare debian/copyright_hints with > debian/copyright_newhints and replace debian/copyright_hints with > debian/copyright_newhints" is displayed, and the copyright_newhints > file does not exist. I first had to search for it in other > directories, run the licensecheck from sources (hence #625442) to make > sure it worked, and finally had to look at the utils.mk source to > figure out that the indicated file was indeed removed just after the > message is displayed. Thanks for elaborating! > > How about simply extend the emitted instructions with setting > > COPYRIGHT_CHECK_STRICT=1 and rerunning the pre-build rule? > From my very superficial knowledge of the code, I think it is a bit > convoluted, and removing the file in the clean: target would seem more > understandable. > > But I may be missing something, and anyway, the main issue is: do not > display a message about the copyright_newhints file if it is removed > just after the message is displayed. Either change the message, or > preserve the file. Honestly I do not recall if there is a good reason for current logic. I'll let this hang a bit to see if I remember, or else I probably restructure as you suggest. Thanks! - 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: Digital signature
