Howdy Chris, I'm copying this discussion to ‘debian-devel’, since I think it has direct bearing on the recent discussions about trying to figure out the actual requirements for the contents of the ‘copyright’ file. On 27-Aug-2009, Chris Lamb wrote: > I'm rejecting your package from NEW because your debian/copyright > doesn't contain the "Copyright (C) blah blah" text along with the > licenses. This is true; the package as originally uploaded had copyright notices preserved in the source, but not duplicated into the ‘copyright’ file. I'm rather confused by events subsequent to this rejection notice. My response was to Chris only (to the ftpmaster address), giving my understanding that Debian Policy §12.5 requires only the verbatim copyright *license terms*, not the duplication of copyright *notices*, to be in the ‘copyright’ file; and asking for clarification on their position. I didn't get a direct response to that message, and I didn't upload another release of the package. However, a few hours later I then saw further traffic indicating the package had been uploaded again, presumably by the sponsor (David Watson), and then that subsequent upload was accepted: On 28-Aug-2009, Archive Administrator wrote: > > Accepted: > python-daemon_1.4.6-1.diff.gz > to pool/main/p/python-daemon/python-daemon_1.4.6-1.diff.gz > python-daemon_1.4.6-1.dsc > to pool/main/p/python-daemon/python-daemon_1.4.6-1.dsc > python-daemon_1.4.6-1_all.deb > to pool/main/p/python-daemon/python-daemon_1.4.6-1_all.deb > python-daemon_1.4.6.orig.tar.gz > to pool/main/p/python-daemon/python-daemon_1.4.6.orig.tar.gz When I look at the ‘copyright’ file for that package <URL:http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/python-daemon/python-daemon_1.4.6-1/copyright>, it doesn't match anything I know. It's not the file I have in my packaging VCS, so by default it will be overridden by any future upload; that's probably a matter for David and me to sort out between us. It also doesn't match the copyright notices as found in the original source; those are rather more complex, and are different across different files. But the *license* terms are correct as stated in the file, as they always have been, since they are unchanged from the original upload of the package. In other words, the only difference between a package that was rejected and a package that was accepted is the addition to the ‘copyright’ file of some copyright notices that don't match the original source. So I don't understand the reasoning for rejecting a package that has the copyright notices intact in the source, but not duplicated into the ‘copyright’ file; and then accepting a package that is identical except for additional copyright notices in ‘copyright’ that don't match the original source. This isn't the first time I've been confounded by ftpmaster policy on this file. Exactly what is it that needs to be in the copyright file for ftpmaster to accept it, and what is the reasoning for that beyond what is in Debian Policy? -- \ “The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that | `\ the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked | _o__) and he has not been caught.” —Henry L. Mencken | Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature