Bug#884006: copyright-format: Documenting copyrights not in source package but in binary package

[Yao Wei <mwei@lxde.org>]

Hi Sean,

My problem is roughly case 1 (and for me, to solve case 2). However as a requirement of some licenses the file must come with the copyright notice, and I am afraid if generates files which it's source comes from another package cannot comply with such requirements.

The generated file inside the upstream package does have a copy of Expat license and copyright notice in the file, but the generated file doesn't include them.

It might be only build dependency but not runtime dependency and the copyright notice should be carried by the binary package.

Yao Wei

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 at 09:01 Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote:

Hello Yao,

On Mon, Dec 11 2017, Yao Wei wrote:

> Files-Binary would be package name and file path to the files which its
> copyright is not in source package but in binary package.  For example:
>
>   Files-Binary: package-a-data, usr/share/package-a-data/file-in-question
>   Copyright:    2038 John Doe
>   License:      Expat
>
> ---
>
> Another solution to this problem is mark certain file which is generated
> using what source package inside the header, and during build process
> the copyright information requires to be attached in the binary package.
> This should introduce another tag "Depends", like:
>
>   Files-Binary: package-a-data, usr/share/package-a-data/file-in-question
>   Depends:      package-b

Thank you for taking the time to write this up!

If I understand correctly, the use case is when your package contains a
file, but the source is in another package?

I think there are two subcases.  Either

1. your binary package contains a file, and the source is in another
   package (your source package does NOT contain the file; it is
   generated/copied during build)
2. your source package (and maybe also your binary package) contains a
   file, and the source is in another package.

Case (1) is (roughly) what the Built-Using field is for.

The ftp-masters have indicated that case (2) is not acceptable.[1]
CCing them in case they want to expand on that.

So I don't think there is a use case for this.  But please let me know
if I've misunderstood.

[1]  https://bugs.debian.org/882723#35

--
Sean Whitton