Re: several things
> > > Another two: perhaps packages shouldn't install if no copyright was
> > Another good one. IMHO, there should be more checking done both
> > before including a package into the distribution and before installing
> > it on the user's system to be sure the package is at least minimally
> > acceptable. A package without a copyright file isn't acceptable, by
> > our guidelines, and shouldn't be placed into the distribution.
> It is not the job of dpkg to decide whether a package is acceptable or
> not in terms of conforming to policies like /usr/doc/copyright. It is
> the job of the people who maintain the distribution that produced the
> dpkg (and dselect)'s job is to check that the package is a consistent
> representation of a sane package (from an appropriate source, if this
> check is desired), and then to install it as desired by the user.
> For example, an organisation might want to make internal packages
> which need not contain /usr/doc/copyright.
That's what I was trying to say, but not too clearly. I wasn't speaking
just about dpkg, and that's probably led to confusion.
dpkg makes a package on the package builder's system, and shouldn't
care about copyright.
The package gets submitted for inclusiion in the distribution, and
shouldn't be included if /usr/doc/copyright/whatever is present
and unles a number of other conditions are satisfied (IMHO).
dpkg is fed a package for installation on a user's system, and
shouldn't care about copyright. I said this in the unquoted lines:
+ Whether or not a package without a copyright should be installed
+ if presented to dpkg on a user's system is arguable. I'd say that
+ it should be installed without complaint, I think.
I agree that any concern about copyright belongs outside of dpkg.
I wasn't implying that it belonged inside of dpkg (at least, I
didn't think that I was).