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

Bug#524740: closed by Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> (Re: Bug#524740: firmware-nonfree: debian/copyright file seems to be outdated)

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:40:15 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 16:56 +0200, Francesco Poli (t1000) wrote:
> > Please update the debian/copyright file, so that it reflects the
> > current content of the package.
> > Thanks in advance.
> Policy requires a copyright file in each binary package, not in the
> source package.

This is true: I looked at the copyright file from the PTS
(http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/firmware-nonfree.html), without
thinking that I should have checked individual copyright files for
binary packages (e.g.: http://packages.debian.org/sid/firmware-linux).

The fact is that I had never encountered a source package with several
binary packages having *distinct* copyright files, so far...  :-o
I wasn't aware it was possible at all!

> debian/copyright is the conventional source for this
> file but is not required.

This is also true, it's a "should", rather than a "must":

| A copy of the file which will be installed
| in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in
| the source package.
[quoted from

> The copyright/licence texts for binary
> packages are actually taken from the corresponding directories in the
> source package.

Good, I've just checked and they seem to include what I was looking for.

But now the question arises: what should be put into a
debian/copyright file, when individual binary packages get distinct
copyright files?
I mean: in order to prevent people from being misled to think that the
debian/copyright is incomplete or inaccurate, like I was...

 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpbel3DlF3a0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: