On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:02:01AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > The policy vetoe to symlinking intends (in my interpretation) two > > goals. One is to ensure that the licences don't "change" unintendidly. > > This could e.g. happen if there is a global file called GPL, the > > packages link there copyright statement to it, and the GPL-file is > > incremented from GPL version 2 and later to GPL version 3 by just one > > misbehaving program. The other is to make sure the copyright file is > > always available. Both traps are avoided in the case where the > > documentation directory is symlinked to the base packages directory. > What if the user has version 1 of abc installed, and version 2 > of abc-doc installed, AND /usr/share/doc/abc-doc is a symlink to > /usr/share/doc/abc, AND the copyright changed between version 1 and > version 2? Then there's an RC bug in the abc-doc package, which should either have a proper versioned dependency or ship its own copy of the copyright info. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpv_P4bUT9yG.pgp
Description: PGP signature