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.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
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.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
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.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
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.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
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.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-
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 rejectedpackage.
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 rejectedpackage.
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.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
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 rejectedpackage.
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.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.',
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 rejectedpackage.
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.
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[snip]
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: '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.
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:38 AM Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> 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?
Seems like a bug on lintian- 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.
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
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 <dr@jones.dk> 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)
Seems like a bug on lintianicc-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.
Feel free to prod me with a small testcase or a patch will try to do something
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.
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
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
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
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.
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 ?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 339 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 00:14:41 |
Calls: | 7,466 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,691 |
Messages: | 5,627,862 |