Bug#989912: libregexp-pattern-license-perl: No deterministic results are provided

[Walter Lozano]

Hi Jonas,

On 6/16/21 2:50 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Walter Lozano (2021-06-16 04:12:23)
>> On 6/15/21 9:17 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Quoting Walter Lozano (2021-06-15 20:42:53)
>>>> As as user of licensecheck I found it does not provide
>>>> deterministic results on some circumstances. And example of this is
>>>> gnutls28/m4/ax_code_coverage.m4 which is detected as UNKNOWN or
>>>> LGPL.
>>>>
>>>> After some debugging I found that the root cause could be in
>>>> libregexp-pattern-license-perl, I have proposed a fix which you
>>>> can find in
>>>>
>>>> https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libregexp-pattern-license-
>>>> perl/-/merge_requests/1
>>>>
>>>> I hope you can help me to clarify this issue.
>>> Great - thanks a lot!
>>>
>>> I suspect that this might be bug#982849.
>> Yes, it looks exactly the same issue I faced. I hope you can confirm
>> and fix it
> I will certainly do that.
In relation to this, I find that the problem is more evident at least 
after these commits, which are related to versioning

  * eddc64dd1f0e6f9bd1769ef580a217aa4be762b8 (synthesize subject pattern
    name: optimize version matching)
  * cd75d77da201260bc9deef4631d5c4d3a42fa41d (add license patterns
    lgpl_2 lgpl-2_1 lgpl-3)

I hope this information is useful.
>>> Please keep all conversation about the bug here - *not* at salsa.
>> Perfect, I will do that. To be honest I was not sure how to submit the
>> proposed fix, I also tried to submitted directly to
>>
>> https://salsa.debian.org/build-common-team/regexp-pattern-license
>>
>> but I was not able to see a way to send a MR.
>>
>> Please advice what is the best way to contribute.
> Sorry, I am aware that reporting issues can be confusing, and am happy
> that you figured out _some_ way to get your findings across.
>
> I use salsa.debian.org as a place to publicly store the git repo but
> *not* to track issues or negotiate change proposals or run continuous
> integration tests or any other of the many things that Gitlab can do.
>
> I use bugs.debian.org to track issues.
>
> Best way to report and discuss issues is to use bugs.debian.org, and
> best way to propose a change is to attach a patch to an email sent to an
> issue tracked in bugs.debian.org.
>
> As you are already aware, some parts of Licensecheck is maintained in
> other libraries.  Git repos exist separately for Debian packaging and
> upstream development of these libraries, but that should not matter for
> issue tracking.
>
> E.g. https://metacpan.org/dist/App-Licensecheck/view/bin/licensecheck
> and https://metacpan.org/dist/App-Licensecheck links to
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=licensecheck for issue
> reporting, and https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting covers issue
> reporting in Debian.
>
> I find it unhelpful that salsa.debian.org by default enables duplicate
> issue tracking services, and I disable those to limit the risk of
> confusion - but sometimes I forget that, and also sometimes others that
> I collaborate with may disagree and (re)enable them.
>
> If you have suggestions for ways I could maybe improve communicating how
> to best report issues, then please do share.
>
Thanks for clarifying, and for taking the time to investigate the issue. 
Next time I will send you a patch  as an attachment.

Regards,

Walter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/attachments/20210616/821a6c45/attachment.htm>