Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1223214

Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source

From	наб <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist
Subject	Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source
Date	2024-12-08 14:20 +0100
Message-ID	<JRpmx-eKeX-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<JKmWt-9Uda-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <JRkGd-eDQ8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <JKmWt-9Uda-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <JRkGd-eDQ8-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Control: severity -1 serious

On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 09:15:17AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [наб]
> > d/changelog says
> >   lsdvd (0.17-1) unstable; urgency=low
> >     * New upstream release, from new upstream and update copyright accordingly.
> > but d/copyright still says
> >   It was downloaded from http://sourceforge.net/projects/acidrip/
> > whereas lsdvd 0.17 actually came from
> >   https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/lsdvd
> This seem to be based on a misunderstanding.  The sf.php script is a
> shim script making it easier to track new sourceforge.net releases in
> d/watch files.  The 'sf' in sf.php stands for sourceforge.
We both understand this perfectly well, then.

> Why do you
> believe these two locations do not represent the same source?
Because one of them says lsdvd and has lsdvd 0.17
but the other one says acidrip and doesn't.

Thus, the one that says acidrip can't possibly fulfil policy 12.5.

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source наб <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz> - 2024-11-19 04:20 +0100
  Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source наб <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz> - 2024-12-08 14:20 +0100

csiph-web