Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> writes:
> I like the patch in general. I have a couple of comments though:
>> <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
> ^^^^^^^ includes?
> Not a native English, but I think that should be includes, or maybe
> better "must either include a verbatim copy ... or a symlink ..."
Thanks, there was a missing "must" before the either.
>> + and distribution license in the file
>> + <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</file> or must
>> + include a symlink
>> + named <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var></file> that points
>> + to the <file>/usr/share/doc</file> directory of another package
>> + that includes the copyright file.<footnote>
>> + The <package>perl-base</package> and <package>perl</package>
>> + packages do not meet these requirements.
>> + <package>perl-base</package> contains the copyright file for
>> + both packages in the location appropriate for
>> + the <package>perl</package>, and <package>perl</package> does
>> + not include either a symlink or a copyright file. Fixing this
>> + would be complex and result in potentially fragile upgrades,
>> + in part because <package>perl-base</package> is essential.
>> + This is therefore permitted as a special exception. Other
>> + packages do not have the added complexity of being essential
>> + and do not get the same exception.
>> + </footnote>
> I've just read #522827 and I wonder if we shouldn't fix this anyway. A
> possible solution (which would take some time though) would be to make
> perl-base a normal dir in one release, so that perl-base ships both
> /u/s/d/perl and /u/s/d/perl-base, and in the next release let perl ship
> /u/s/d/perl, with a Replaces on perl-base. I'm OK with the exception for
> now, but I think we should fix it and remove it and the special case in
> lintian if possible.
I'm certainly happy to see someone do the work to do that. I don't feel
comfortable requiring that it get done, though, based on the history in
the bug log. But I think it would be great for consistency if it did
happen.
>> + The second option may only be used if all of the following
>> + requirements are met:
>> + <enumlist>
>> + <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>
> Should we tighten this to be a dependency on the same version? Otherwise
> it would be possible to have the two packages coming from different
> versions of the source package where the license changed in between,
> with wrong information in the copyright file for the package that has a
> symlink. Not sure if this hypothetical case is worth the trouble.
My inclination is to say no, since there are various tricky problems with
requiring the dependency be on the same version when one package is arch:
any and one package is arch: all. There's also been push-back in
debian-devel against a Lintian tag requiring that the dependency be on the
same version, so there's some evidence that we don't have consensus for
requiring that.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: