[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)

Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> writes:

> I agreed with Steve at the time, that files not shipped in a .deb need
> not be documented in /usr/share/doc/foo/copyright shipped in the .deb;

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, including the ftp-masters.  The
question is whether the source package also needs a copyright file of its

In other words, if you created both debian/copyright and
debian/binary-package.copyright, where the latter contains only
information about what's in the binary package and is installed in that
binary package, I highly doubt ftp-master will complain.  However, they
currently still rely on debian/copyright documenting the entire source
package for the purposes of license review.

I think we need a broader discussion following the Policy process to work
out and reach consensus on exactly what copyright documentation we, as a
project, want to require in our packages, both source and binary.  We keep
having one-off, ad-hoc discussions without all the involved parties
participating, which is a large part of why we don't reach consensus.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: