Bug#801609: license-reconcile: FTBFS: cannot parse file 't/data/example/sample.png'

[Nicholas Bamber]

I am working on this in license-reconcile. However I really don't see 
how this could affect devscripts. devscripts is a core package, 
license-reconcile is no such thing,

On 30/10/15 17:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Control: affects -1 devscripts
>
> We are seeing this same failure in Ubuntu following the update of devscripts
> to 2.15.9.  The change causing the failure is that licensecheck -r no longer
> filters based on filenames, instead filtering only on mime types; and so
> instead of returning copyright results only for t/data/example/base.h, it
> returns results for all files (base.h, debian/copyright, debian/changelog,
> base, sample.png).
>
> $ licensecheck --no-conf --recursive t/data/example 2>/dev/null
> t/data/example/base.h: GPL (v2)
> t/data/example/debian/copyright: *No copyright* GPL (v1 or later)
> t/data/example/debian/changelog: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
> t/data/example/base: GPL (v2)
> t/data/example/sample.png: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
> $
>
> Compare the earlier behavior:
>
> $ licensecheck --no-conf --recursive t/data/example
> t/data/example/base.h: GPL (v2)
> $
>
> This is a behavior change that license-reconcile will need to adapt its
> testsuite to.
>
> But I'm also marking this as affects: devscripts, because I find it
> surprising that the new licensecheck output includes a line for sample.png,
> when the file was explicitly reported as unparseable.  It doesn't seem
> desirable to me that licensecheck would list files in its output that are
> definitely not going to have embedded license/copyright information and
> whose copyright information must be listed elsewhere.
>
> Perhaps we want to make sure the new behavior for licensecheck is settled
> before patching license-reconcile.
>