What to do when a package is blocked from getting updated due to it
being itself?

I have tried replying to FTPmasters as invited in the rejection message,
but have been met with silence.

I have tried filing bug#1030961 but have so far seen no response on that either.

Will it make sense to reassing that bugreport to the technical
committee? Or to the release team? Or should I request removal of the package, because security bugfixes (however unlikely for a package
containing purely static data files) is impossible?


- Jonas

Quoting Debian FTP Masters (2023-02-09 04:19:39)

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc usual name is ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file GRACoL2006_Coated1v2.icc usual name is GRACoL2006_Coated1v2.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected

package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ISOcoated.icc usual name is ISOcoated.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ISOcoated_v2_300_eci.icc usual name is ISOcoated_v2_300_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected

package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc usual name is ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ISOnewspaper26v4.icc usual name is ISOnewspaper26v4.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ISOnewspaper26v4_gr.icc usual name is ISOnewspaper26v4_gr.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected

package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ISOuncoated.icc usual name is ISOuncoated.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ISOuncoatedyellowish.icc usual name is ISOuncoatedyellowish.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected

package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ISOwebcoated.icc usual name is ISOwebcoated.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PSO_Coated_300_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc usual name is PSO_Coated_300_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-

profiles.', automatically rejected package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PSO_Coated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc usual name is PSO_Coated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.',

automatically rejected package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PSO_LWC_Improved_eci.icc usual name is PSO_LWC_Improved_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected

package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PSO_LWC_Standard_eci.icc usual name is PSO_LWC_Standard_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected

package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PSO_MFC_Paper_eci.icc usual name is PSO_MFC_Paper_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PSO_SNP_Paper_eci.icc usual name is PSO_SNP_Paper_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PSO_Uncoated_ISO12647_eci.icc usual name is PSO_Uncoated_ISO12647_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically

rejected package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PSO_Uncoated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc usual name is PSO_Uncoated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.',

automatically rejected package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file PhotoGamutRGB_avg6c.icc usual name is PhotoGamutRGB_avg6c.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected

package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file SC_paper_eci.icc usual name is SC_paper_eci.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file SWOP2006_Coated3v2.icc usual name is SWOP2006_Coated3v2.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file SWOP2006_Coated5v2.icc usual name is SWOP2006_Coated5v2.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file eciRGB_v2.icc usual name is eciRGB_v2.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file eciRGB_v2_ICCv4.icc usual name is eciRGB_v2_ICCv4.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file sRGB.icm usual name is sRGB.icm. This file may not be distributed without fee if modified. See also https://bugs.debian.org/657281.', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_black_scaled.icc usual name is sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_black_scaled.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.',

automatically rejected package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_no_black_scaling.icc usual name is sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_no_black_scaling.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.',

automatically rejected package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file sRGB_v4_ICC_preference.icc usual name is sRGB_v4_ICC_preference.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected

package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file sRGB_v4_ICC_preference_displayclass.icc usual name is sRGB_v4_ICC_preference_displayclass.icc. Could not be modified See also http://www.color.org/srgbprofiles.xalter.',

automatically rejected package.

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild ', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: If you have a good reason, you may override this lintian tag.

===

Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns.

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private --==============(00479851351065049=MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmP3+KoACgkQLHwxRsGg ASGjqg/+J//FQemXfu1jKfWevNiQfvU8zwaKKHNb4UYyLQQZDVsPay2KSkj8s4Av EHryA7qphAZ+4H/WBgppfIYCHkvxixfcCljisN4MmsxByi6BI9CDgo3s2GyaGlq8 zR7uCrF2evU98z8go8/p6ZamcKhD71JVh8zyCGZMa9LZrlsfmEOSvpRKdumQEihf Ya69KMxJmWGhVrDPbX8PdgBVEWbSNxjnHbEltkKegvTMdGUQYrLqPWrhVMUj17kP GnzpwsfrRrUtB+MSUdXVkl+hJDYM+iSfvfXs+flzSW8Wucs0gGjagR20C3Z7VsBn mP0fuAn339wGtHPVAElWonLbxcToAcnb7i+HO0VI/yifvlSQhClX3/XQ2RGVsAKY CCk+/FsQe77i+MlG5DZPp3n+aSxlptg0D8wpkTtjkwpxWGJTLOUJyXP35EhgMeYE e2r2Y4ZDaeH2fhXb6TIcGcBE1VxaKBPSi6WzWCAA

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote:

What to do when a package is blocked from getting updated due to it
being itself?

I have tried replying to FTPmasters as invited in the rejection message,
but have been met with silence.

I have tried filing bug#1030961 but have so far seen no response on that either.

Will it make sense to reassing that bugreport to the technical
committee? Or to the release team? Or should I request removal of the package, because security bugfixes (however unlikely for a package
containing purely static data files) is impossible?

- Jonas

Quoting Debian FTP Masters (2023-02-09 04:19:39)

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc usual name is ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.

[snip]

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild ', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: If you have a good reason, you may override this lintian tag.

It's auto rejected. So I think it can be technically solved.
For license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file, it's obviously a false
positive from lintian. It should not emit such if the source is the
non-free section. It should be reported as a bug for the lintian
package. And you can submit patches as well, backport to the version
that ftp-master server uses.
For source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild, it's really a
bug in your upload. You should fix it.

--
Shengjing Zhu

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Copy: [email protected] (Shengjing Zhu)

Le vendredi 24 février 2023, 06:13:48 UTC Shengjing Zhu a écrit :

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote:

What to do when a package is blocked from getting updated due to it
being itself?

I have tried replying to FTPmasters as invited in the rejection message, but have been met with silence.

I have tried filing bug#1030961 but have so far seen no response on that either.

Will it make sense to reassing that bugreport to the technical
committee? Or to the release team? Or should I request removal of the package, because security bugfixes (however unlikely for a package containing purely static data files) is impossible?

- Jonas

Quoting Debian FTP Masters (2023-02-09 04:19:39)

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc usual name is ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.

Seems like a bug on lintian

Feel free to prod me with a small testcase or a patch will try to do something

Bastien

[snip]

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild ', automatically rejected package.
icc-profiles source: If you have a good reason, you may override this lintian tag.

It's auto rejected. So I think it can be technically solved.
For license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file, it's obviously a false
positive from lintian. It should not emit such if the source is the
non-free section. It should be reported as a bug for the lintian
package. And you can submit patches as well, backport to the version
that ftp-master server uses.
For source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild, it's really a
bug in your upload. You should fix it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEXQGHuUCiRbrXsPVqADoaLapBCF8FAmP6FUcACgkQADoaLapB CF+eXRAAgWgkjPBwAKlRtFYfGGxPZeCR4SzizIKVGAHXS0hDCZpL1EFrza/RibzC Pl7sGh2BnTff3AduC2ewAyR8P1yYFoZeTnPH2U4FnxOHP8I6DjXJEdfo7RqUKUd9 Ya7LCJQg2vH8xyqItoFdnIVQ5sGEl6a9W3QbV1+UUQRm3gqYasi6w6fA/cAcEp9X ynPluwc6glOsGSSK6TRTaaycCyT3KNmA+38wPIOOb9uoRjExUAHf0xr2Feup06pR 46tdnSiDRT9eVrrzZId+kDoFkr7uLDGraCzT4Pz+RR2DKEm1XO3xohWeXXVsc+QS 0iVnWEJHLfOVo+cPNn06QxGVFtTOB2kHR/3JsdIjFggX6SpgcX2xBKKwIrrN1DW6 a3w/ufN/+qEs8+HksmbyTsikfIyfufbRHzUMIAfXgT7RqQrboR4k+dky/ON3d9Ph h2WOzJch/Ryssy6iYTHbTTd1Dks4K3kb8Z5L2mtEqYqzJ9hIWhFIDst2IXst54Bx x596M/kA+vudu5hKi3Em6ROHZBvzoCPB9isdRdB05ZbPfc0VdvqjX6bGcO3clMT8 Zr9U7dNh4dlvA8KF4fsVRHh5FOAR9OQTYSy0QBA2VbgY6yW4NCCBw6OlDdxh1WU6 uR5jkPU2h1gT6JN9b5484ip2l331f6RXrRnbVdpmYPj6ASsNNCc=
=D9nP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 12:22:34 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

I am not convinced, however, that this issue is a bug in lintian:
The testcase you ask for is the actual files in the icc-profiles source package which already is already correctly identified by lintian. I.e.
issue is not that some different files get misdetected but instead that lintian _correctly_ identifies the files in this non-free package and _correctly_ classifies those as unsuitable in main

That's correct to a point, but it seems wrong for lintian to be emitting a
tag that means "this package is unsuitable for main and that's a problem"
for a package in non-free. Yes, we know it's unsuitable for main, and
the maintainer has acknowledged that by uploading it to non-free... it
doesn't seem like there is any benefit to having an unfixable Lintian
error as well.

Or if the interpretation of the tag is "you should use the copy of this
file from icc-profiles instead of shipping your own copy", then the lintian check should have a special case to silence that tag when the package being checked *is* icc-profiles.

There are similar special cases in other parts of Lintian. For example,
it looks for embedded code copies of zlib, but that check has a special
case to avoid it being triggered by zlib itself, because obviously zlib
should be allowed to ship zlib code; and similarly checks for a bundled
font like Deja Vu shouldn't trigger for fonts-dejavu itself.

smcv

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-02-25 15:04:09)

Le vendredi 24 février 2023, 06:13:48 UTC Shengjing Zhu a écrit :

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote:

What to do when a package is blocked from getting updated due to it
being itself?

I have tried replying to FTPmasters as invited in the rejection message, but have been met with silence.

I have tried filing bug#1030961 but have so far seen no response on that either.

Will it make sense to reassing that bugreport to the technical
committee? Or to the release team? Or should I request removal of the package, because security bugfixes (however unlikely for a package containing purely static data files) is impossible?

- Jonas

Quoting Debian FTP Masters (2023-02-09 04:19:39)

icc-profiles source: lintian output: 'license-problem-md5sum-non-free-file ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc usual name is ECI-RGB.V1.0.icc. Does not allow modification See also https://packages.debian.org/sid/icc-profiles.', automatically rejected package.

Seems like a bug on lintian

Feel free to prod me with a small testcase or a patch will try to do something

Thanks, Shengjing Zhu, for suggesting to solve this in lintian.

Thanks, Bastien, for offering to help do that.

I am not convinced, however, that this issue is a bug in lintian:
The testcase you ask for is the actual files in the icc-profiles source
package which already is already correctly identified by lintian. I.e.
issue is not that some different files get misdetected but instead that
lintian _correctly_ identifies the files in this non-free package and _correctly_ classifies those as unsuitable in main, but ftpmaster then
using that identification and classification as reason for rejecting an
upload of the non-free package.


- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Simon McVittie (2023-02-27 13:04:25)

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 12:22:34 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

I am not convinced, however, that this issue is a bug in lintian:
The testcase you ask for is the actual files in the icc-profiles source package which already is already correctly identified by lintian. I.e. issue is not that some different files get misdetected but instead that lintian _correctly_ identifies the files in this non-free package and _correctly_ classifies those as unsuitable in main

That's correct to a point, but it seems wrong for lintian to be emitting a tag that means "this package is unsuitable for main and that's a problem"
for a package in non-free. Yes, we know it's unsuitable for main, and
the maintainer has acknowledged that by uploading it to non-free... it doesn't seem like there is any benefit to having an unfixable Lintian
error as well.

Or if the interpretation of the tag is "you should use the copy of this
file from icc-profiles instead of shipping your own copy", then the lintian check should have a special case to silence that tag when the package being checked *is* icc-profiles.

There are similar special cases in other parts of Lintian. For example,
it looks for embedded code copies of zlib, but that check has a special
case to avoid it being triggered by zlib itself, because obviously zlib should be allowed to ship zlib code; and similarly checks for a bundled
font like Deja Vu shouldn't trigger for fonts-dejavu itself.

Ah, I was unaware that lintian at other places includes exceptions like
that, an that lintian is expected to do reliable assessments in this
kind of tests.

When that's the case, then please, Bastien (or others skilled with
internals of lintian) please refine the tests for icc-profiles contents
to exclude icc-profiles package itself.

(I'll file a bugreport against lintian if I notice no actions from this)

Kind regards,

- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

To: [email protected]
Copy: [email protected] (Jonas Smedegaard)

Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Hi jonas,

I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check your package and create a simple test case ?

According to: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91
The test should not raise

Bastien

Quoting Simon McVittie (2023-02-27 13:04:25)

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 12:22:34 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

I am not convinced, however, that this issue is a bug in lintian:
The testcase you ask for is the actual files in the icc-profiles source package which already is already correctly identified by lintian. I.e. issue is not that some different files get misdetected but instead that lintian _correctly_ identifies the files in this non-free package and _correctly_ classifies those as unsuitable in main

That's correct to a point, but it seems wrong for lintian to be emitting a tag that means "this package is unsuitable for main and that's a problem" for a package in non-free. Yes, we know it's unsuitable for main, and
the maintainer has acknowledged that by uploading it to non-free... it doesn't seem like there is any benefit to having an unfixable Lintian
error as well.

Or if the interpretation of the tag is "you should use the copy of this file from icc-profiles instead of shipping your own copy", then the lintian check should have a special case to silence that tag when the package being checked *is* icc-profiles.

There are similar special cases in other parts of Lintian. For example,
it looks for embedded code copies of zlib, but that check has a special case to avoid it being triggered by zlib itself, because obviously zlib should be allowed to ship zlib code; and similarly checks for a bundled font like Deja Vu shouldn't trigger for fonts-dejavu itself.

Ah, I was unaware that lintian at other places includes exceptions like
that, an that lintian is expected to do reliable assessments in this
kind of tests.

When that's the case, then please, Bastien (or others skilled with
internals of lintian) please refine the tests for icc-profiles contents
to exclude icc-profiles package itself.

(I'll file a bugreport against lintian if I notice no actions from this)

Kind regards,

- Jonas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEXQGHuUCiRbrXsPVqADoaLapBCF8FAmQCZN4ACgkQADoaLapB CF9/aA/+ImORhwP4NomBKdq5993Gb8N8CyrMTm99+P5IxV7NMXJnRzp+9Iz8yghq owzz2Pyt28uXJvLlnRpsCRudnpt6Uz89Z/rEpSr1NvdcrGsxSNfHr49UMP3P9Fr8 fthi7zWRuESrIOZrijQnEIAVX8RIS5QRuvxGCBCebVqHDKwurB1o6kY0lWyD0TRO SrZkF0lf+giGv3NGd/KcxrwsZwJuEbn+MvUCk+XhiPXkPvgc308E1dJqVcbgQpeZ nUBrAKlecxyMjxq8tejjFaJsSSBUlgMiu3TSiAGnEKe98yTaATt0nBN7rs0XqCsk 4a6VZycpGaK2cctwSfcqwHPhdx8xslOLZy/UiRNB8W98cgAJuqxbQRXvhye/hiHQ JiyHv1Y5G+uHkRPcsnfiphPYWcIhswY20oMJXHlzYm/9+lhL6dhxSO59kZsmAoUm AnxmYAD3Kwpu19z3tHb7wKak3382fK8C+VQ6OS/XUK7SPn4QAArCMXiHbEARo/0P Rtf0d1GzF6o5heeLDRcqHI+x/rtvRv7kIvDPcx/OPzefckPocYxGZjjNkU3co8M2 73ApkrBwg070heN3Lu1YdJyCRP7AR+NElGwpF566hPo+/b40L4RL1HQVT7WSsLiC x/kI7IQR0r1GOpu9tl4UckgI2iRt11t8qDlsT0LKEKvpCPg9wis=
=3ZF+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

To: [email protected]
Copy: [email protected] (Jonas Smedegaard)

Le vendredi 3 mars 2023, 22:35:24 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :

Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49)

Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Hi jonas,

I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check your package and create a simple test case ?

According to: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91
The test should not raise

Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me to do.

In case it was unclear from my previous posts: The rejection messages I shared was not from a lintian check done locally by me, but a rejection message I received from ftpmaster.

Locally I did not experience the same messages. Are you asking me to
test again that I (again) do not experience the kind of messages that ftpmasters for some reason unknown to me trigger?

Yes could you double check ?

If you do not experience the kind of messages with locally installed lintian, it means that lintian need to be backported and that ftpmaster should install a backport version.

Bastien

- Jonas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEXQGHuUCiRbrXsPVqADoaLapBCF8FAmQCe10ACgkQADoaLapB CF/shg/+P5519sKXlBvEm/ft6l125sX2MiqRhOg+wXI6WdDHpX0Z9fT9XXSSTRgC RyDzM6GGtNh9H02RUFKckvruiDwsekgY0ImJFwUhOSbxQkm59CFgIkk7OoJM2DyJ 2wx/EAIdwtU3lHxLPI9RXwnm2KWSxifS9izN+1fP6gbGuoKBFNFrj1WSGpbwqe+G Z9kTu5GTz/DkxqSSJ5C5uYbRM9FcWm+nAKcWCqSzU2yhe5tY7LrV5z3y3bJLDQob DM0pCZb964OPT/DkHPbs6sif0KBiUDESVa3MrInj1r7BJ9/UdcQrASLN9np1TOLj K/ansMwK+TJ+41Am1gZTUvvgMprD8O0N0x9W8DWhJFLJMyLOHG1lNG2vz5K9kXq2 ci/NC2vM925lZvQj6Whd5mXf70WS8S4fsG4XO4IF89KtlwPhhjkAw+2W8GODqJzF E9eaZYLh23sgB5bQkbSdjKMwUu7Rjbn6CxMHlVxbH+2lviX5+CVXYXsI+sU1Q4fB Wk5nidAaLG/ltMJ9qOsc4P50EbIXnbliNijMqNeMKH2rZAzn4NPkvhPFJDs5lOWz 4QYxZ5eUr4CuP19fYgHtXbIymL0wUNuKSavhs/4xuprl1VoDngzxqzS0xtExGL+1 eJMRPuKSSZHz91KIG8FW7GuwSx3+QfOXEReOqzMbHHfP3UqSqhs=
=jZY/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49)

Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Hi jonas,

I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check your package and create a simple test case ?

According to: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91
The test should not raise

Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me to do.

In case it was unclear from my previous posts: The rejection messages I
shared was not from a lintian check done locally by me, but a rejection
message I received from ftpmaster.

Locally I did not experience the same messages. Are you asking me to
test again that I (again) do not experience the kind of messages that ftpmasters for some reason unknown to me trigger?

- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private --==============61699409862685139=MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmQCdikACgkQLHwxRsGg ASHtVQ//RQH3DpigG8avlhqImNG8bLFF0VRvay3JrUveifmmWEYKfIP309jqhGdd R0C7WtLO7NyePYbRnFqyyXJzWoYH01V2HTVjmSRf+wM1OfRF/x7XUlAEHUQpzbx9 cQsTGs/wsK2CRM2DGHjcWnVEjPeZiVb776ri7mtdg59dQB+tnkpXWNEEwl+dSUJo /L0dqnXfXqJMI2mgNwKJbdfFn5g+BdEpLIKQGJmrIaPq77utENy9bFlybTsIjS1J 15Q1DvZtB7bcvDuyh9mqCDHB6/ALdsLzkyWHXg1x/j0kzFlYYurY5x01D87aCy7p N4GZJ2tIStpvhIhJMeH0CU3bokGgjuGN8VD2hR/OhXz9jRSA3cpB0rJcS+PWEBXX wFoPhvuCmeA/4ErUwKNzJwI8hrxzbJazJytiDXdLYLH6IGsrrWyXEoyKyMpdaCp3 5wb3J64bLMXuGiK64t4yestUmyqChnoCs9WoxNyN

Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 23:57:47)

Le vendredi 3 mars 2023, 22:35:24 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :

Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49)

Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Hi jonas,

I have just checked the source code of lintian. Could you double check your package and create a simple test case ?

According to: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Files/NonFree.pm#L91
The test should not raise

Sorry, I don't understand what you ask me to do.

In case it was unclear from my previous posts: The rejection messages I shared was not from a lintian check done locally by me, but a rejection message I received from ftpmaster.

Locally I did not experience the same messages. Are you asking me to
test again that I (again) do not experience the kind of messages that ftpmasters for some reason unknown to me trigger?

Yes could you double check ?

If you do not experience the kind of messages with locally installed lintian, it means that lintian need to be backported and that ftpmaster should install a backport version.

Ah, now I understand - sorry for being dense.

I do get those files detected on my up-to-date untable system, but only
as warnings:

$ lintian --tag-display-limit 0 *_amd64.changes
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/ISOcoated_v2_to_PSOcoated_v3_DeviceLink_info_DE.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/ISOcoated_v2_to_PSOcoated_v3_DeviceLink_info_EN.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Coated_300_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Coated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Coated_v3_Glossy_laminate_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Coated_v3_Matte_laminate_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_LWC_Improved_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_LWC_Standard_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_MFC_Paper_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_SNP_Paper_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Uncoated_ISO12647_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSO_Uncoated_NPscreen_ISO12647_eci_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOcoated_v3_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOcoated_v3_to_ISOcoated_v2_DeviceLink_info_DE.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOcoated_v3_to_ISOcoated_v2_DeviceLink_info_EN.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOsc-b_paper_v3_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSOuncoated_v3_FOGRA52_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSR_LWC_Plus_V2_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSR_LWC_STD_V2_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSR_SC_Plus_V2_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/PSR_SC_STD_V2_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/SC_paper_info.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/eciRGB.txt [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information ECI/licence.rtf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information HP/c55.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information IDEAlliance/Introducing PrintWide - Idealliance.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information IDEAlliance/Introducing the XCMYK Profile 12.1.17.11.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information IDEAlliance/PrintWide2020 - Idealliance.icc [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information IDEAlliance/README PrintWide - Idealliance.txt [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information JPMA/JC_ICCprofile__Appendix.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information color.org/ICC_ITU.txt [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information color.org/ICC_Probe.txt [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information color.org/ICC_RGB_gamut_warning.txt [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information color.org/ICC_White_Paper42_Using_the_sRGB_ICC_v4_appearance_profile_2014.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information color.org/ICC_White_Paper_26_Using_the_V4_sRGB_ICC_profile.pdf [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: file-without-copyright-information color.org/sRGB_IEC61966-2-1.txt [debian/copyright]
W: icc-profiles source: superfluous-file-pattern PrintWide2020*Idealliance.icc [debian/copyright:155]

(I don't recall having seen those warnings locally in my earlier checks,
but am not certain - maybe I misremember).

- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private --==============97254871476747248=MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmQC+uoACgkQLHwxRsGg ASG67w/8Dh5NEBgBed24L1GviHN/mw3UR6TCoIlRw2NcDjPbp4FQ8f6lB8NJQMOQ ffyBn2qsztPKEuamrLpjzoMfzHFkBwUGNyTQsmtYmIe1zchUxM+MxxAIXQODi7v1 A01w5oBK/9iPOq6bqqb6CMp9QvcALS6DMfcRu+CMVZzckwq0X+N4R3xPfdOxKOND 6a8v3pJP7OmC/Ua/IQ+CygMN2x6NQDYbPgPbMIT8SdP6TBt+6nZ0i20+PzzxPOQ+ f574q02P2tbj+qSjr+PYdR2brLqtFJ/uracINb1EiJkg3GBG8cJHBk3mEA03Hh+t c10B8zmL+Dfl4Z1C587c5p9ZqsLJs5KJoG8sBFMSsn6CsURaBkRJilZYsoBk4yC+ d0aCzufIxmlMN5pZnT/bWgJcWLHt4V5Y5sh7VI5JZxRlEZ8TKaJzpXw7FX/CZYsG jYdBfsUtgqdKQFzceNQm/BsAkOYmyp9GDjp9/iTG

Quoting Bastien Roucariès (2023-03-03 22:21:49)

Le lundi 27 février 2023, 12:11:27 UTC Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Could you double check your package and create a simple test case ?

Here is a easy (but not simple: requires unstable Debian, deb-src in
apt, and network access) test case:

apt source icc-profiles
lintian icc-profiles_*.dsc


- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private --==============72777470799966039=MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmQC/OwACgkQLHwxRsGg ASEieQ//VIfjfvqjc2VbJC959AYR37FTjBhxCTLRhhTroh+fHz6bowbGe1nS97y6 5sEwYFYgmWdw4qztJdljgZKzy9daSyONyAsiTqXSJbpAxqUjknY/9r9pB902L6D6 kXktk/ADs5PsT7M5kJl3MHYjQjrbR+SMxAkJ7i4GSD+TQ6LrONZLo6JbR0TmAR6C S5TpI5w0tANPQZ8GrvsaXA7HNJRUglFmbtUkclwZZvA4jA32Z+r4yl5JVKtZGVSH JIJYM1RlIxsBV5TjmR9+ubJ7rOuuWNaGe0jAK+VjmmE5Ey+aECNySTDjT2H9T6UZ ht+mhRhM0dH0k48NB0ELkh92mUcYCqjva3rTCXihehPhHmOlqbZ8KvWfWAwwwGmy ShDGj40EVybgPk/gYvPhiKrBDylqHqHYFS8biIs0oHI9+4ZWE7TxQ7K7TWG6pS63 jnpyQxcCEIBJB5yTXVa91rSdoNroJxgM7R4v7ZVR