feat(gh-actions/build-debian): Don't run licenserecon

[adombeck]

Turns out that lintian already checks the licenses and it's really the issues found by lintian which we care about (at least that is what reviewers of uploads to the archive look at).

We just have to make the build-debian action fail when lintian fails (done in #100) and pass --fail-on error,warning to lintian (possible via the lintian input).

[adombeck]

@hk21702 #97 (comment) should be irrelevant with this

[hk21702]

Just a FYI, last time I really dug into this, lintian's license checking was generally much worse than lrc, and mostly focuses on formatting. Additionally, I have had a reviewer check with lrc and say that I should use it in CI.

I think the solution here is probably to just move the lrc out into its own action, given the vendoring stuff I mentioned here, #97 (comment) and to also not slow stuff down. Granted, the older version of lrc in noble isn't very helpful, so you need to do what you were doing here or do what I did in ubuntu-insights and pull the source and build from scratch (with caching) https://github.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-insights/blob/main/.github/workflows/lrc-qa.yaml. Though, once we get resolute GitHub runners, we can probably just use what's in the archive.

[adombeck]

Just a FYI, last time I really dug into this, lintian's license checking was generally much worse than lrc, and mostly focuses on formatting.

I've also seen lrc report more issues than lintian, but really what I care about is just to make the archive admins happy and in a recent review they just cited the issues reported by lintian.

Additionally, I have had a reviewer check with lrc and say that I should use it in CI.

Ok that changes things.

I think the solution here is probably to just move the lrc out into its own action, given the vendoring stuff I mentioned here, #97 (comment) and to also not slow stuff down.

Since we should run it on the extracted source package, which means we need to build the source package first, I think it does make sense to have it in the build-debian action, no? Maybe we should just make it opt-in instead of opt-out (via an input run-lrc which defaults to false)?

[hk21702]

Making it opt-in makes sense to me.

As for the original concern of performance while avoiding using older versions of lrc, doing what I did with a cached .deb might be faster than using Docker to run it in a fresh devel image, but it has its own downsides of being a bit of a hack.

Additionally, I have had a reviewer check with lrc and say that I should use it in CI.

Ok that changes things.

Just for some context, it was brought to me back with my original "needs packaging" request for Insights https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-insights/+bug/2107478

[adombeck]

Closing in favor of #101