Re: Goals of debian/copyright
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:10:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:25:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > >> 8) Provide information about the upstream maintainer and upstream
> > >> location of the software for non-native software, including any
> > >> necessary repackaging of upstream source for Debian's purposes.
>
> > > Does that information necessarily belong in ‘debian/copyright’? I
> > > thought the proposed ‘debian/README.source’ was more suited for this.
>
> > I've had that conversation I think five separate times now and each time
> > seem to have convinced people, which is why debian/copyright is what's
> > recommended in devref and similar sources (see devref 6.7.8.2). I can
> > have the conversation again if you haven't seen the previous rounds, but
> > I'd rather not if you're willing to either take my word for it or research
> > the previous conversations. (Apologies if this sounds snarky; I'm not
> > upset at you. I'm just kind of tired of repeating myself. :/)
>
> Where have these conversations taken place? I don't recall seeing any such
> discussions before, and don't understand how documenting "any necessary
> repackaging of upstream source" in debian/copyright meshes with Policy 4.14.
There has been some discussion on debian policy, but the conclusion
was that the repackaging of upstream source need to be mentionned in
debian/copyright when it affects the copyright status of the package,
not always.
Repackaging of upstream source is not always done for licensing reason,
and most of the time, does not change how the upstream source code was
obtained.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: