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

[Nicholas Bamber]

I have had another think and I would like to make the folloiwng points.

1.) license-reconcile is an experimental package and not at all critical 
to Debian. Unlike decscripts so something is a really wrong if a bug in 
license-reconcile affects devscripts.
2.) I think what Steve meant to do was clone #801609, retitle and 
reassign the clone to devscripts. That's reasonable as there may well be 
more work to do.
3.) As it is supposed to work, license-reconcile is not wholly dependent 
on licensecheck. That said I think one filter is probably obsolete now 
that licensecheck has been improved.
4.) The core thing I wish to avoid is licnese-reconcile development and 
licensecheck development being tied together in anyway. That of course 
means licensecheck will continue to cause problems for license-reconcile 
but as long as those problems are not gratuitous I see no issue.


On 31/10/15 19:41, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Friday 30 October 2015 10:58:55 Steve Langasek wrote:
>> 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.
>
> For what it's worth this change of behavior was requested in #794282 [1].
> Jonas explicitly requested licensecheck to parse binary files.
>
> This broke 'cme update dpkg-copyright', which led to #797562 [2] . To
> alleviate the issue, I added a -t option to licensecheck to skip binary files.
>
> After re-reading the whole saga, I think this situation can be improved. I'll
> discuss with Jonas to nail down the requirements for a better solution.
>
> All the best
>
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=794282
> [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=797562
>