Hello, On Fri 15 Aug 2025 at 09:07pm +02, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2025-08-15 at 10:20 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > [...] >> I think the point of the bug report is that we should consider adding a >> keyword like "license-text" to the standard to allow explicitly tagging >> such files without having each person come up with their own. > > Exactly. > > [...] >> I'm not sure they should have their own license block, since the whole >> point is that we're ignoring them. Maybe there should be a new field that >> lists ignored files that don't need to be documented in debian/copyright >> for whatever reason? Although I'm not sure this generalizes; I can't >> off-hand think of another case besides license texts. > > I think copyright/license information is precisely the special case that > does merit special treatment in debian/copyright. > >> I suppose that mechanism could be a Lintian override, and that's not a bad >> answer here. Maybe this case is uncommon enough that an override would be >> fine and it's overkill to add a field? > > I've gone with overrides for now, but I would prefer to have a proper > way to document these files. Yes, this would be better. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature