Linux puskom-ProLiant-DL385-Gen10 5.4.0-150-generic #167~18.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed May 24 00:51:42 UTC 2023 x86_64
/
usr
/
share
/
lintian
/
checks
/
//usr/share/lintian/checks/source-copyright.desc
Check-Script: source-copyright Author: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> Abbrev: scpy Type: source Needs-Info: unpacked, src-orig-index, java-info Info: This script checks if a source package conforms to policy with regard to copyright files. . Each source package should have a debian/copyright file. Tag: debian-copyright-is-symlink Severity: normal Certainty: certain Info: The file <tt>debian/copyright</tt> is a symlink instead of a regular file. This makes package checking and manipulation more difficult. . This problem may have prevented Lintian from performing other checks. Tag: no-debian-copyright Severity: minor Certainty: certain Ref: policy 12.5 Info: Every package must include the file <tt>/usr/share/doc/<i>pkg</i>/copyright</tt>. A copy of this file should be in <tt>debian/copyright</tt> in the source package. Tag: no-dep5-copyright Severity: pedantic Certainty: certain Info: This package does not use a machine-readable debian/copyright file. . This format makes it easier to review licenses and can be easily parsed by Lintian. Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Tag: unknown-copyright-format-uri Severity: pedantic Certainty: wild-guess Info: The copyright file appears to intended as machine-readable, but Lintian cannot recognize its format URI. It could be a typo for a common URI or a syntax error in the first paragraph. Please file a bug against Lintian if you believe that the copyright file in syntactically valid and the URI is correct. Tag: boilerplate-copyright-format-uri Severity: normal Certainty: possible Info: Format URI of the machine-readable copyright file contains <tt>VERSIONED_FORMAT_URL</tt> or <tt>REVISION</tt> string. Please replace it with an actual URI or an actual revision number respectively. Tag: insecure-copyright-format-uri Severity: pedantic Certainty: certain Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: Format URI of the machine-readable copyright file uses the plain HTTP unencrypted transport protocol. Using HTTPS is preferred since policy 4.0.0. . Please use <tt>https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/<i>version</i>/</tt> as the format URI instead. Tag: wiki-copyright-format-uri Severity: pedantic Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: Format URI of the machine-readable copyright file refers to Debian Wiki. . Debian Wiki is not used for the format development anymore. Please use <tt>https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/<i>version</i>/</tt> as the format URI instead. Tag: unversioned-copyright-format-uri Severity: pedantic Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: Format URI of the machine-readable copyright file is not versioned. . Please use <tt>https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/<i>version</i>/</tt> as the format URI instead. Tag: out-of-date-copyright-format-uri Severity: pedantic Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: A newer version of the machine-readable copyright file specification, than the one referenced by the copyright file, is available. . This problem may have prevented Lintian from performing other checks. Tag: syntax-error-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The machine-readable copyright file didn't pass Debian control file syntax check. . This issue may hide other issues as Lintian skips some checks on the file in this case. Tag: obsolete-field-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The machine-readable copyright file uses a field, that used to be defined by the specification, but has been renamed since then. . Please use Format instead of Format-Specification. . Please use Upstream-Contact instead of Contact, Maintainer or Upstream-Maintainer. . Please use Upstream-Name instead of Name. Tag: comma-separated-files-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: A list of files in the machine-readable copyright format appears to be separated by commas. The file list should be whitespace separated instead. . Please note this tag is only emitted once per checked copyright file. Tag: missing-field-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The paragraph in the machine readable copyright file is missing a field that is required by the specification. Tag: empty-short-license-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The short license field in the machine readable copyright file is empty. Tag: license-problem-undefined-license Severity: serious Certainty: possible Ref: https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html Info: Your copyright file references a license that is not defined. Due to copyright law or treaties, files that are not available under a defined license are non-free and non-re-distributable. . Referencing an undefined license could mean the file cannot be distributed in Debian or it could simply mean that the existing license needs to be documented. In both cases, the copyright file should be updated to reflect reality. . Please re-package the package without the file (if possible) or ask the FTP-masters to remove the package. . If the package has been uploaded to Debian before, and if affected files cannot be distributed in Debian please remember to also notify snapshot.debian.org about this package containing a non-distributable file. Tag: invalid-short-name-in-dep5-copyright Severity: minor Certainty: certain Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The “License” field contains a short name observed to be a misspelling of one of the standard short names. Tag: space-in-std-shortname-in-dep5-copyright Severity: minor Certainty: certain Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The “License” field contains a short name with a space, which does not conform to the specification. Tag: bad-exception-format-in-dep5-copyright Severity: minor Certainty: certain Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The “License” field contains a short name with a bad exception format. According to specification format of exception is: shortlicencename with exceptionname exception. . If more than one exception applies to a single license, an arbitrary short name must be used instead. Tag: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The files paragraph in the machine readable copyright file references a license, for which no standalone license paragraph exists. Tag: missing-license-text-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The standalone “License” paragraph contains only short license name, but not the license text. Tag: unused-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright Severity: minor Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The license paragraph in the machine-readable copyright file is not referenced by any files paragraph. It could be a typo in the license name or the license paragraph is simply not needed and can be removed. Tag: unknown-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The machine-readable copyright file contains a paragraph that is neither a standalone license paragraph nor a files paragraph. Tag: field-name-typo-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Info: The listed field name is a likely misspelling of one of the documented DEP-5 fields. . Lintian will continue by using the "misspelled" variant, but other parsers are unlikely to do so. . Implementation detail: The typo is detected by using "Levenshtein edit distance". Therefore, if the typo involve several characters, Lintian may not detect it. Tag: ambiguous-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: #652380, https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The paragraph has a "License" and a "Copyright" field, but no "Files" field. Technically, this is a valid paragraph per the DEP-5 specification. However, it is mostly likely a mistake. . If it is a <tt>stand-alone license paragraph</tt>, the "Copyright" field is not needed and should be removed. On the other hand, if it is a <tt>files paragraph</tt>, it is missing the "Files" field. . Please note that while the "Files" field was optional in some cases in some of the earlier draft versions, it is mandatory in <i>all</i> <tt>files paragraphs</tt> in the current specification. . Lintian will attempt to guess what you intended and continue based on its guess. If the guess is wrong, you may see spurious tags related to this paragraph. Tag: pipe-symbol-used-as-license-disjunction Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: In contrast to package dependencies, the pipe symbol or vertical bar does not indicate a logical disjunction or OR-relationship between two license short names. Instead, the keyword "or" between two license names indicates the dual licensing. Tag: dep5-file-paragraph-references-header-paragraph Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The Files paragraph uses a reference to a license which is only defined in the Header paragraph. The copyright specification requires that the Files paragraph either contains the full license itself or references a "stand-alone" License paragraph, and not the Header paragraph. Tag: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: This paragraph defines an already defined license. . According to the specification, short license names are required to be unique within a single copyright file. . This tag could be raised by something like this: . Files: filea ... Copyright: 2009, ... License: LGPL-2.1 This program is free software; ... . Files: fileb ... Copyright: 2009, ... License: LGPL-2.1 This program is free software; ... . In this case, you redefine LGPL-2.1 license. You should use a stand-alone paragraph or merge the two files (using a single paragraph). Tag: invalid-escape-sequence-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The only allowed escape sequences are "\*", "\?" and "\\" (without quotes) to produce a literal star, question mark and backslash, respectively. Without the escaping backslash, the star and question mark take the role of globbing operators similar to shell globs which is why they have to be escaped. No other escapable characters than "*", "?" and "\" exist. Tag: wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright Severity: minor Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The wildcard that was specified matches no file in the source tree. This either indicates that you should fix the wildcard so that it matches the intended file or that you can remove the wildcard. Notice that in contrast to shell globs, the "*" (star or asterisk) matches slashes and leading dots. Tag: file-without-copyright-information Severity: normal Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The source tree contains a file which was not matched by any of the <tt>Files</tt> paragraphs in debian/copyright. Either adjust existing wildcards to match that file or add a new <tt>Files</tt> paragraph. Tag: unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright Severity: minor Certainty: possible Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Info: The <tt>Files</tt> paragraph in debian/copyright appears to be superfluous as it is does not match any files. . You should be able to safely remove it. . This can also be caused by incorrect relative ordering of paragraphs. Tag: source-includes-file-in-files-excluded Severity: serious Certainty: possible Info: A file specified in the <tt>Files-Excluded</tt> field in debian/copyright exists in the source tree. . This might be a DFSG violation, the referenced files are probably not attributed in <tt>debian/copyright</tt>, or the upstream tarball was simply not repacked as intended. Alternatively, the field is simply out of date. . mk-origtargz(1) is typically responsible for removing such files. Support in <tt>git-buildpackage</tt> is being tracked in #812721. Tag: missing-notice-file-for-apache-license Severity: serious Certainty: possible Info: The package appears to be licensed under the Apache 2.0 license and a <tt>NOTICE</tt> file (or similar) exists in the source tree. However, no files called <tt>NOTICE</tt> or <tt>NOTICE.txt</tt> are installed in any of the binary packages. . The Apache 2.0 license requires distributing of such files: . (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file [..] . Please include the file in your package, for example by adding <tt>path/to/NOTICE</tt> to a <tt>debian/package.docs</tt> file. Ref: /usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0 Tag: files-excluded-without-copyright-format-1.0 Severity: serious Certainty: certain Info: The <tt>Files-Excluded</tt> field in <tt>debian/copyright</tt> is used to exclude files from upstream source packages such as when they violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines . However, this field will be ignored by uscan(1) if the <tt>copyright</tt> file is not declared as following the <tt>1.0</tt> format. . Please ensure your <tt>debian/copyright</tt> file starts with the following line: . Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Ref: uscan(1) Tag: global-files-wildcard-not-first-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright Severity: normal Certainty: certain Info: The specified paragraph in the machine readable copyright file references all possible files but is not the first paragraph. For example: . Files: filea Copyright: 2009, ... . Files: * Copyright: 2010, ... . As the paragraphs is matched on a "last match wins" principle, all proceeding paragraphs are overridden. Ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Tag: missing-explanation-for-contrib-or-non-free-package Severity: wishlist Certainty: certain Info: The specified package is in the contrib or non-free archive area but does not include a "Comment" (or "Disclaimer") field in its copyright file. . Please add a brief comment why this package cannot be part of the main Debian distribution. Ref: policy 12.5 Tag: missing-explanation-for-repacked-upstream-tarball Severity: wishlist Certainty: possible Info: The version of this package contains <tt>dfsg</tt>, <tt>ds</tt>, or <tt>debian</tt> which normally indicates that the upstream source has been repackaged, but there is no "Comment" or "Files-Excluded" field in its copyright file which explains the reason why. . Please add a comment why this tarball was repacked or add a suitable "Files-Excluded" field.