[Build-common-hackers] Bug#625448: Bug#625448: Bug#625448: cdbs: Do not remove copyright_newhints if it contains new information

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Tue May 3 18:10:11 UTC 2011

On 11-05-03 at 05:12pm, Olivier Aubert wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 17:02 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 11-05-03 at 02:35pm, Olivier Aubert wrote:
> > > When new copyright information is detected by licensecheck, the 
> > > displayed procedure advises to compare/replace copyright_hints 
> > > with copyright_newhints. However, if COPYRIGHT_CHECK_STRICT is not 
> > > set, the copyright_newhints is removed in all cases, which makes 
> > > the file unavailable for further processing.
> > 
> > > The proposed patch removes the copyright_newhints only if there is 
> > > no further processing to do.
> > 
> > CDBS previously behaved like your patch proposes, but was changed as 
> > the "clean" target must properly clean - i.e. not leave behind any 
> > noise.
> Then why not simply 
> rm debian/copyright_newhints
> in the clean target?

Hmm - that sounds more elegant indeed.

> > So i doubt the patch is really sensible.  Or that this really is a 
> > problem, other than one of improving documentation.
> The problem is that for the moment, the message is misleading: a 
> message indicating "Fully compare debian/copyright_hints with 
> debian/copyright_newhints and replace debian/copyright_hints with 
> debian/copyright_newhints" is displayed, and the copyright_newhints 
> file does not exist. I first had to search for it in other 
> directories, run the licensecheck from sources (hence #625442) to make 
> sure it worked, and finally had to look at the utils.mk source to 
> figure out that the indicated file was indeed removed just after the 
> message is displayed.

Thanks for elaborating!

> > How about simply extend the emitted instructions with setting 
> > COPYRIGHT_CHECK_STRICT=1 and rerunning the pre-build rule?
> From my very superficial knowledge of the code, I think it is a bit 
> convoluted, and removing the file in the clean: target would seem more 
> understandable.
> But I may be missing something, and anyway, the main issue is: do not 
> display a message about the copyright_newhints file if it is removed 
> just after the message is displayed. Either change the message, or 
> preserve the file.

Honestly I do not recall if there is a good reason for current logic.

I'll let this hang a bit to see if I remember, or else I probably 
restructure as you suggest.  Thanks!

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/build-common-hackers/attachments/20110503/4cfab2ca/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Build-common-hackers mailing list