Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-18 Thread Ben Finney
Bernd Zeimetz writes: > Usually an override is a fail in the maintainer's brain or a bug in > lintian. Only in rare cases overrides are the right way to go. Yes, that's pretty much my point: that *if* a Lintian check leads to many maintainers adding an override for that tag that persist over tim

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-18 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Ben Finney wrote: > Paul Wise writes: > >> Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary, >> duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or >> the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff? > > I think they lead to widely-used, persistent overrides, and I think such > ove

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > Paul Wise writes: > >> Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary, >> duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or >> the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff? > > I think they lead to widely-used, persistent o

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread W. Martin Borgert
On 2009-10-18 09:46, Ben Finney wrote: > I don't have a strong objection in this case, and I can see good > arguments for and against a Lintian check. I wouldn't put up a fight > either way :-) Me neither, it's certainly one of the least pressing issues we have with Debian & Python :~) -- To UN

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Ben Finney
Paul Wise writes: > Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary, > duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or > the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff? I think they lead to widely-used, persistent overrides, and I think such overrides are an indicator that th

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread W. Martin Borgert
On 2009-10-17 23:59, Ben Finney wrote: > So currently I don't think they are bugs of any severity above ‘minor’. I agree, that this is 'minor' or even 'wishlist'. > Presumably all these are created by upstream ‘setup.py’ settings, so it > would ultimately be for upstream to fix in each case. The

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > I disagree. This issue in the ‘setup.py’ settings is upstream's > responsibility. Lintian is best reserved for reporting problems that are > the Debian package maintainer's responsibility. Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary, duplicated-

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Ben Finney
Jakub Wilk writes: > * W. Martin Borgert , 2009-10-17, 13:23: > >/usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN > > It would be better to file a bug against lintian to have a check for > such issues. I disagree. This issue in the ‘setup.py’ settings is upstream's responsibility. Lint

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Jakub Wilk
* W. Martin Borgert , 2009-10-17, 13:23: Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect: /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN [snip] I'm too lazy right now to file bugs It would be better to file a bug against lintian to have a check for such issues. -- Jaku

Re: License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread Ben Finney
"W. Martin Borgert" writes: > Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect: > > /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN > /usr/share/pyshared/cups-1.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN […] > /usr/share/pyshared/spambayes-1.0.4.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN > /usr/share/pyshared/t

License entry in egg info files

2009-10-17 Thread W. Martin Borgert
Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect: /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN /usr/share/pyshared/cups-1.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN /usr/share/pyshared/Django-1.1.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN /usr/share/pyshared/git_build_package-0.0.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN