* Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org>, 2011-12-19, 09:49:
The problem is with paragraphs like this:
| Copyright: 2042, J. Random Hacker
| License: BSD-6-clauses
| Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
| modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
| are met: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and blah.
In early DEP-5 drafts, Files field could be ommited in certain
circumstances, so this could have been a perfectly valid files
paragraph. But with the current DEP-5 version, if we allow any extra
fields, this suddenly becomes a valid stand-alone license paragraph.
Please see bug #652380 for a real-world example.
Meh. When someone writes their debian/copyright with this line at the
top:
Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
then they have no business complaining when parsers and validators
reject the file as not being compliant with the current version of the
spec.
So far nobody has been complaining about that. The only complain was
about unhelpful (though technically correct) diagnostics.
More to the point, lintian should *not* be trying to accept such files
on the basis that this was once considered valid.
Agreed. And it does not try do it.
Lintian should be enforcing the current spec on anything that claims to
be a DEP5 file, not trying to support all kinds of intermediate forms
as "valid".
Now if there were a Format: line at the top pointing at a url that
lintian doesn't know about, it would be reasonable to skip the rest and
simply note that an unrecognized format is being used.
Agreed. That's how it's currently implemented: if the detected DEP-5
version is older than svn148 (which was the last time the spec was
overhauled), the only tag DEP-5-ish tag it'll possibly emit is the one
complaining about the URI itself.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111219185833.ga4...@jwilk.net
