Quoting Jérémy Lal (2022-11-30 13:29:18) > Le mer. 30 nov. 2022 à 12:47, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Quoting Jérémy Lal (2022-11-30 12:27:34) > > > Le mer. 30 nov. 2022 à 12:21, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> a écrit > > : > > > > Quoting Jérémy Lal (2022-11-30 10:06:07) > > > > > it seems that licensecheck doesn't know .lua is an extension for the > > Lua > > > > Programming Language. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what is the issue reported. > > > > > > > > Do licensecheck fail is some specific situation, or do you expect it to > > > > have certain use of knowing about lua as a language? > > > > > > > > Perhaps if you provide a concrete example case it helps me > > understand... > > > > > > > > > > The default check regex does not include files with a *.lua extension. > > > > Ahh. Thanks. > > > > Yes, by default licensecheck scans only a somewhat arbitrary subset of > > files based on their file extension. I find that fundamentally flawed > > (i.e. not fixable by changing the set of extensions) and I expected a > > future release of licensecheck to move away from extension-based > > selection (either by default or altogether). > > > > If you see some particular need for current extension-based selection > > (just extended to include .lua) then please do share - perhaps I am > > simply lacking in imagination. > > > > Yes, as I'm involved more and more with some packages having lua files, > and being a (new) user of "cme update dpkg-copyright", I would find it > awesome > if licensecheck had those lua files in the default set of extensions. > > The default set looks indeed somewhat arbitrary, indeed. > Maybe licensecheck could expect other languages to setup their own config > somewhere in > /etc/licensecheck/conf.d/lua.conf > but that would be a huge change, and I'm not sure it's worth it. > > Exemple of a lua file containing a copyright: > https://salsa.debian.org/nginx-team/libnginx-mod-http-lua/-/blob/master/t/lib/Redis.lua
Thanks for the concrete examples. What I meant was not examples of statements contained in .lua files, however, but cases of it being sensible to continue to have a default extension-based skiplist. Sorry - I see now that my point was vague previously. Licensecheck does not distinguish between code languages: It scans plaintext content for human-language license- and copyright-statements. What is broken about the default extention-based skiplist is not that it misses .lua files, but that it misses *ALL* files with a not-assumed-relevant content. Adding .lua extension to default list will only fool users working with lua code, same as it is already fooling users working with C and perl and python code now: When licensecheck reports that it found no copyright or licensing, you get fooled into thinking that there are no licensing when really the message should have included a warning that not all files were examined at all. For those using licensecheck directly, I recommend to override the default to scan everything, and then explicitly exclude unwanted files (either because licensecheck chokes on them containing non-text content, or because they are huge and known to not contain relevant data - e.g. extremely large JSON or dictionary files). But as you mention that you use licensecheck directly only indirectly through cme, I can just suggest that you discuss with the author of cme what is sensible for that tool: I have already implemented other user-targeted warnings for uncertainties requiring action, which cme deliberately strip, so we disagree about what users should be bothered to care about in a copyright- and licensing scanner and you might be in agreement with the cme author about simply including .lua files and then living in bliss. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
