Peter, On Tuesday, August 6, 2024 7:38:45 AM MST Peter B wrote: > > In addition to the other comments, lrc is prone to a high number of > > false > > > positives. It is helpful as a tool, but its failure often doesn’t > > indicate > > > there is an actual problem. So, people should probably enable it > > manually in > > > their CI instead of it being automatic. > > Please report these problems. > Bug report, Salsa Issue, or just email me the name of the package in > question. > If notified, I might be able to fix it.
Thanks. It is always nice to work with someone who wants to improve their package. I have submitted a couple of bug reports that were easy to put my finger on because I am the maintainer of the package. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1078099 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1078100 One of them should be fairly easy for you to fix and the other one might not be fixable in an automated license check as it requires too much understanding of the context of what is being expressed in the header. If you go back through the emails on Mentors for the past several months you will see there are several times where lrc indicated a problem that was claimed to be a false positive (probably around 25% of the time lrc detected an issue). I didn’t verify those myself, but my guess that in at least some cases lrc was indeed incorrect. All that being said, I think that lrc is a wonderful tool. I am glad we have it and I use it myself. In terms of using it as part of an automated CI pipeline, it would be valuable if there were some way to override false positives, similar to lintian overrides. That way, the check could still be run (detecting new issues) against packages that have known false positives. Soren -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
