Hello, I'm working on packaging binutils-sh-elf, which is a native package which only has a debian/ directory. At build time, it extracts the tarball from binutils- source—whatever version it happens to be—and builds it into binary packages with the appropriate options. For informative purposes, I have this notice in my debian/copyright file: Comment: This file specifies licensing information only for the source package, which merely provides the tooling for the sh-elf port. For licensing information about the GNU Binutils binaries, consult /usr/share/doc/binutils-common/copyright. This seems like a convenient solution that satisfies the spirit of Debian Policy, since I recommend binutils-common for the translations anyway. This doesn't feel much different from referring to /usr/share/common-licenses/. However Policy seems to say I ought to include the notices directly: > However, the copyright notices for any files which are compiled into the > object code shipped in the binary package must all be included in > /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright when the license requires that copyright > information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions, as most > do. I could concatenate my /usr/share/doc/pkg/copyright with the one for the Binutils source, but then I'd have to give up having a machine-readable copyright file since Binutils doesn't have one, and also seems convoluted. Does it seem like my comment in my copyright file may satisfy the intent, or that I still need to mangle the file? Similar packages don't seem to be as meticulous on this issue.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.