To be honest, the copyright file always is the most time consuming part of packaging for Debian, at least for me. So that's not really unexpected, dh handles most other issues as long as you don't have to rewrite the upstream build system. (Making a Debian package can be pretty quick. Making a
package to submit to the Debian project takes a lot longer)
I figure it's worth it as it makes the packages in Debian higher quality
and better understood, though I do wish that more projects did things like
https://reuse.software (standard for having copyright and license data in
every file, etc) and that Debian tooling handled this format or spdx data better. (I've written some quick utilities to help with this but they
aren't very polished).
Don't get discouraged! Especially since there is an upstream in this case
who should be fairly easy to find and contact, it's a project and not just
one person with an outdated email address...
Ryan
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022, 8:39 AM Fabio Fantoni <
[email protected]> wrote:
Il 23/10/2022 04:04, Paul Wise ha scritto:
On Sat, 2022-10-22 at 15:59 +0200, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
Which would be the best tool(s) to get a good starting debian/copyright
and decrease the time it takes to complete and fix it?
Allegedly scancode is the best option for that, but it isn't in Debian.
I think decopy/licensecheck are the best ones already in Debian.
https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReviewTools https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/
Personally I afterwards manually review each file and check all of the details, since the Debian archive admins will be doing that anyway.
I find that a keyboard-driven file manager like mc works for this.
Thanks for reply, some manual checks can be ok, but when you start
having difficulties and it takes more time for debian/copyright alone
than all the rest of the packaging I think it is unpleasant and
unproductive.
then when the files are thousands or more manually checking each one
would be impossible as time
decopy spotted one file (usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/96/miro.svg) with
license "CC-BY", I tried a search for found the specific license used
but I not found, in mint-theme instead for example about a license doubt >> I went to look for the origin and I found it and solved it
( https://salsa.debian.org/cinnamon-team/mint-themes/-/commit/dcf71951df39f326ea9057d39095f7e94926bf19
),
regarding this file, however, the site mentioned inside no longer exists >> and therefore I have not found a certain answer.
All the sites mentioned in that commit work for me:
https://github.com/shimmerproject/Greybird
https://shimmerproject.org/
the commit linked about mint-theme was a search I did successfull (as example) intead about mint-x-icons was not
there are also some other files with "creative common" found inside it
with a grep but that was not spotted by decopy and also in these there
aren't details on the exact license
Might be worth filing bugs on decopy about these missing detections.
done, seems that decopy spotted only the one file with:
<!-- License: creative commons attribution -->
and not:
xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
that with a grep seems in 1872 files
As Andrew says, best ask upstream about any unclear licenses.
done
<div dir="auto">To be honest, the copyright file always is the most time consuming part of packaging for Debian, at least for me. So that's not really unexpected, dh handles most other issues as long as you don't have to rewrite the upstream
build system. (Making a Debian package can be pretty quick. Making a package to submit to the Debian project takes a lot longer)<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I figure it's worth it as it makes the packages in Debian higher quality and
better understood, though I do wish that more projects did things like <a href="
https://reuse.software">https://reuse.software</a> (standard for having copyright and license data in every file, etc) and that Debian tooling handled this format or spdx
data better. (I've written some quick utilities to help with this but they aren't very polished).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Don't get discouraged! Especially since there is an upstream in this case who should be fairly
easy to find and contact, it's a project and not just one person with an outdated email address...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ryan</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Oct 23, 2022, 8:
39 AM Fabio Fantoni <<a href="mailto:
[email protected]">
[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Il 23/10/2022 04:04, Paul Wise ha
scritto:<br>
> On Sat, 2022-10-22 at 15:59 +0200, Fabio Fantoni wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Which would be the best tool(s) to get a good starting debian/copyright<br>
>> and decrease the time it takes to complete and fix it?<br>
> Allegedly scancode is the best option for that, but it isn't in Debian.<br>
> I think decopy/licensecheck are the best ones already in Debian.<br> ><br>
> <a href="
https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReviewTools" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReviewTools</a><br>
> <a href="
https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/</a><br>
><br>
> Personally I afterwards manually review each file and check all of the<br> > details, since the Debian archive admins will be doing that anyway.<br> > I find that a keyboard-driven file manager like mc works for this.<br>
Thanks for reply, some manual checks can be ok, but when you start <br>
having difficulties and it takes more time for debian/copyright alone <br>
than all the rest of the packaging I think it is unpleasant and <br> unproductive.<br>
then when the files are thousands or more manually checking each one <br>
would be impossible as time<br>
><br>
>> decopy spotted one file (usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/96/miro.svg) with<br>
>> license "CC-BY", I tried a search for found the specific license used<br>
>> but I not found, in mint-theme instead for example about a license doubt<br>
>> I went to look for the origin and I found it and solved it<br> >> (<a href="
https://salsa.debian.org/cinnamon-team/mint-themes/-/commit/dcf71951df39f326ea9057d39095f7e94926bf19" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://salsa.debian.org/cinnamon-team/mint-themes/-/commit/
dcf71951df39f326ea9057d39095f7e94926bf19</a>),<br>
>> regarding this file, however, the site mentioned inside no longer exists<br>
>> and therefore I have not found a certain answer.<br>
> All the sites mentioned in that commit work for me:<br>
><br>
> <a href="
https://github.com/shimmerproject/Greybird" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://github.com/shimmerproject/Greybird</a><br>
> <a href="
https://shimmerproject.org/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://shimmerproject.org/</a><br>
the commit linked about mint-theme was a search I did successfull (as <br> example) intead about mint-x-icons was not<br>
><br>
>> there are also some other files with "creative common" found inside it<br>
>> with a grep but that was not spotted by decopy and also in these there<br>
>> aren't details on the exact license<br>
> Might be worth filing bugs on decopy about these missing detections.<br>
done, seems that decopy spotted only the one file with:<br>
<!-- License: creative commons attribution --><br>
and not:<br>
xmlns:cc="<a href="
http://creativecommons.org/ns#" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
http://creativecommons.org/ns#</a>"<br>
that with a grep seems in 1872 files<br>
><br>
> As Andrew says, best ask upstream about any unclear licenses.<br>
><br>
done<br>
</blockquote></div>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)