Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
>> --- a/policy.sgml
>> +++ b/policy.sgml
>> @@ -569,10 +569,14 @@
>> <heading>Copyright considerations</heading>
>>
>> <p>
>> - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of
>> - its copyright and distribution license in the file
>> - <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</file>
>> - (see <ref id="copyrightfile"> for further details).
>> + Every binary package must include a verbatim copy of its
>> + copyright and distribution license in the file
>> + <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</file> or
>> + symlink that directory to a package that does (see
> It mentions a file, not a directory. You also seem to saying the same
> thing in an other part.
Reworded to:
<p>
Every binary package must include a verbatim copy of its
copyright and distribution license in the file
<file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</file> or
symlink the <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var> directory to
a package that does (see <ref id="copyrightfile"> for further
details).
The reptition is somewhat intentional, just to make sure that we get the
same information in front of people in every place where they may be
looking.
>> @@ -9060,39 +9063,82 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
>> <heading>Copyright information</heading>
>>
>> <p>
>> - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
>> - copyright and distribution license in the file
>> - <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</file>. This
>> - file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link.
>> + Every package either include a verbatim copy of its copyright
> In other changes you made it clear that this is about binary
> packages.
This whole section of Policy is mostly in the context of binary packages,
but it can't hurt. Added the word binary here as well.
>> + <item>
>> + All the requirements for using a symlink instead of a
>> + directory as <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var></file>
>> + described in <ref id="addl-docs"> must be met. This means
>> + both packages must come from the same source package and the
>> + package must depend on the package containing its copyright
>> + and distribution license.
>> + </item>
>> +
>> + <item>
>> + There must be a direct dependency on the package containing
>> + the copyright and distribution license. An indirect
>> + dependency via a third package is not sufficient.
>> + </item>
> Some package currently don't do this, but have an A->B->C dependency,
> where A, B and C are all from the same source package and C contains the
> copyright. I guess it would be good to have some input from a
> maintainer that does that.
Lintian has been warning about this for some time, and I think it may even
be an ftp-master reject at this point. The logic has been that we don't
require software looking for copyright files to implement full transitive
dependency logic, only look in a package and its immediate dependencies.
I'm okay with relaxing that if we come up with good alternative wording,
but it's different from what we've required, and I'm not sure it's really
worth the effort. It's not that difficult to add the additional direct
dependency, and it amounts to a no-op from the package management
perspective.
>> @@ -9120,10 +9166,12 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
>> </p>
>>
>> <p>
>> - You should not use the copyright file as a general <file>README</file>
>> - file. If your package has such a file it should be
>> - installed in <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/README</file> or
>> - <file>README.Debian</file> or some other appropriate place.</p>
>> + You should not use the copyright file as a general
>> + <file>README</file> file. If your package has such a file it
>> + should be installed in
>> + <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/README</file> or
>> + <file>README.Debian</file> or some other appropriate place.
>> + </p>
>> </sect>
>>
>> <sect>
> This is just reformatting of the current text?
Yes, sorry. My bad.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: