Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.1.1
t/exception.t occasionally fails as follows
# Failed test 'detect licensing "(GPL-2+ and/or LGPL-2.1+) with SDC
exception" for sdc.py'
# at t/exception.t line 179.
# +-++-+
# | GOT
On 05.11.20 03:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Sandro Mani (2020-11-04 22:54:56)
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.1.1
I'm reporting this downstream issue [1], for your evaluation:
Description of problem:
$ licensecheck COPYING
COPYING: Expat License GNU Lesser General Public Li
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.1.1
I'm reporting this downstream issue [1], for your evaluation:
Description of problem:
$ licensecheck COPYING
COPYING: Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3
Perhaps a bit of a pathological case.
Version-Release number of selected compon
So the current Array::IntSpan maintainer managed to track down the
original author, which has agreed to relicense to Artistic-2.0, which
resolves this issue.
On 24.02.20 15:14, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Sandro Mani (2020-02-24 14:29:41)
On 24.02.20 13:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I'll go with applying the patch, and make a note in the rpm specfile
that it is a temporary hack and causes the deficiencies you
describe.
Your call :-)
On 24.02.20 13:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I'll go with applying the patch, and make a note in the rpm specfile
that it is a temporary hack and causes the deficiencies you describe.
Your call :-)
Could you confirm whether the temporary hack would result in the same
level of accuracy licens
On 24.02.20 12:21, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
If you do choose to carry this patch, then I kindly request that you
document clearly that you are effectively distributing a fork of the
code, so that your users do not get the false impression that the
quality of your licensecheck is on par with th
Hi Jonas
On 24.02.20 11:58, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi Sandro,
Quoting Sandro Mani (2020-02-24 10:12:50)
Since I need to update the package in Fedora (it is currently broken),
I've prepared the patch below to remove the dependency. Can you
perhaps confirm that it does not fundamentally
Hi Jonas
Since I need to update the package in Fedora (it is currently broken),
I've prepared the patch below to remove the dependency. Can you perhaps
confirm that it does not fundamentally break licensecheck in some way?
From my tests, it appears to work.
Thanks
Sandro
diff -rupN A
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.0.41
The perl Array-IntSpan module is licensed Artistic v1 [1], but this
license is considered a non-free license [2] and not allowed in Fedora [3].
As such, Fedora won't be able to ship newer versions of licensecheck as
long as there is a dependency on this m
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.0.36
As reported downstream at [1]:
$ wget
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/x/xonsh/xonsh-0.8.12.tar.gz
$ tar xf xonsh-0.8.12.tar.gz
$ licensecheck xonsh-0.8.12/xonsh/parser_table.py
=> Licensecheck hangs eating cpu cycles (the file has lines wi
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.0.36
As reported downstream at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595880:
When running licensecheck on OpenJDK sources[1] I'm getting this:
Use of uninitialized value $3 in concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/App/Licensecheck.
As a workaround, I figured out I can pass to debuild
--buildinfo-option="-O"
which makes dpkg-genbuildinfo send the contents of the buildinfo file to
stdout instead of creating the file, which means that it does not appear
in the .changes file either.
On 06.07.2016 10:25, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Sandro Mani (2016-07-06 09:56:36)
Following is a trimmed version of the downstream bug at [1], already
reported for devscripts at [2].
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350021
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/828088
Thanks, but
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.0.1
Following is reported downstream at [1]:
licensecheck detects a LBNLBSD [2] header as BSD (3 clause).
The reported of the downstream bug asks whether licensecheck should be
able to distinguish them.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352025
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.0.1
Following is a trimmed version of the downstream bug at [1], already
reported
for devscripts at [2].
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350021
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/828088
Description of problem:
When licensecheck ran, it reported:
find
On 05.07.2016 21:35, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quite interesting - assuming you did in fact check the --help option.
What does "licensecheck --version | head -n 1" say?
Never mind, I was using licensecheck from devscripts-2.16.5. So all
good, thanks for your responsiveness!
On 05.07.2016 15:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Sandro Mani (2016-07-05 14:15:26)
On 05.07.2016 12:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Thanks for elaborating on how Fedora uses licensecheck for quality
assurance. I appreciate your contacting upstreams to ensure that
licensing statements are
On 05.07.2016 12:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Sandro Mani (2016-07-05 11:43:22)
Hi Jonathan
My name is Jonas (but not offended at all - not to worry :-) )
Uh, no idea how I managed this confusion?! Sorry!
For reviews, we have a tool (fedora-review) which runs licensecheck
Debian :-D
Comments below the quote...
Quoting Sandro Mani (2016-07-05 09:24:31)
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.0.1
The following issue was raised during review of the Fedora package [1]:
These source files are without license headers:
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/bin/licensecheck
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.0.1
The following issue was raised during review of the Fedora package [1]:
These source files are without license headers:
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/bin/licensecheck
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/lib/App/Licensecheck.pm
Please, ask to upstream to confirm
Package: devscripts
Version: devscripts-2.16.5
Following is a trimmed version of the downstream bug at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350021 :
Description of problem:
When licensecheck ran, it reported:
find: File system loop detected; ‘./src/giac’ is part of the same file system
On 10.10.2015 10:16, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 07:36:21PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 05:22:16PM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
Some time back licensecheck grew a dependency on Dpkg::IPC [1], which on
Fedora causes the "devscripts-mi
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.15.9
Some time back licensecheck grew a dependency on Dpkg::IPC [1], which on
Fedora causes the "devscripts-minimal" package (which includes
licensecheck) to pull in dpkg. I'd like to propose the patch below to
reduce the dependency load:
diff -rupN devscripts
On 09.07.2015 13:17, Dominique Dumont wrote:
On Wednesday 08 July 2015 10:09:48 Sandro Mani wrote:
It should either print "*No copyright* UNKNOWN" or info that this script
doesn't work on binary files.
I suggest that licensecheck issues a warning when a non text file
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.15.5
From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1240914:
Description of problem:
In fedora-review package, script /usr/bin/licensecheck is used - it's part of
devscripts-minimal package. Running licensecheck on binary file (such as
tarball, picture, etc.)
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.14.10
From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082680:
/usr/bin/annotate-output does not handle date formats with spaces. I.e.:
$ /usr/bin/annotate-output "+%F %T" date
date: extra operand ‘%T’
Try 'date --help' for more information.
I: Started date
dat
Package: sensible-utils
Version: 0.0.9
Packaging sensible-utils for Fedora, rpmlint told me:
sensible-utils.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/man/de/man1/sensible-editor.1.gz
sensible-utils.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/man/fr/man1/sensible-editor.1.gz
sensible-utils.noarch: W: file-no
28 matches
Mail list logo
