Re: QPL in /usr/share/comon-licences (was: Re: wnpp: ITP: apc --
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>Previously John Galt wrote:
>> No. However if it's resolved so that the GPL must be included in each
>> deb, there's really no more point in common-licenses, thus neatly solving
>> the whole issue at hand.
>
>That's not true, you could replace the GPL document in the package
>with a symlink to a copy in common-licenses in the postinst for
>example.
Wasn't that the bone of contention? Whether or not the present tack of
symlinking /usr/share/doc/common-license was allowable? I was
hypothesizing that this was not the case.
>Wichert.
>
>
--
Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: