Bug#472199: licensecheck still broken

[Nicholas Bamber]

Thoughts below

On 19. 11. 15 16:33, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 21:08:04 Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>> 1.) Your thoughts on #472199? My reading of the bug report is you have
>> no interest in this as you provide the functionality in cme. On the
>> other hand I'd quite like something in this direction as this would
>> remove the need to map between the legacy licensecheck format and DEP-5
>> format.
>
> It would be relatively easy to modify licensecheck to output DEP-5 format
> instead of the current format.

First of all I think backwards compatibility should be maintained so any 
change should be an option.

>
> But who would want a dep-5 file with one paragraph per scanned file ?

I was only asking about the translation of the license tags?
But then if you translate the license tags it would cost nothing to go 
to a crude bloated DEP-5 format. But since I think we agree that we do 
not wish to attempt to make licensecheck to produce "good" DEP-5 it 
might be best to avoid moving it in that direction.

>
> That would create huge output for big packages.
yes this would be prompt people to raise wishlist bugs for 
consolidation. slippery slope.

>
> If you mean producing license tags in dep5 format (i.e. "gpl-2", "gpl-2+").
> Then yes, I think this should be done in licensecheck, but doing so without
> yet another option may break current tools (e.g. ghostscript package).

Yes. Still I can't make my mind up.

> Agreed. I think that #472199 should be tagged wontfix or its title should be
> changed to "need a tool to create dep-5 file from source file".
>
> scan-copyrights does this work. I'm fine with extracting it from libconfig-
> model-dpkg-perl once it has stabilized enough.
>
> All the best
>

done!

I am slightly puzzled why 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=519080 is a wishlist 
bug and not a full blown bug.