Re: debian/copyright for files not part of the binary packages?
on the whole I rather agree with Steve's point of view. It's great to see
that ftpmasters are doing thorough checks when they have to check
something but in this case, a simple library transition, they shouldn't
check for licenses and shouldn't refuse the update when the package has
already been accepted into main and that it's fine for main.
They could have filed a bug if they think that the copyright file should
be updated but rejecting the update is just wrong. There's nothing broken
in the package.
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, it's not clear to me. Why do you think that config.sub should be given
> an exception? If it's because we know that config.sub does not contaminate
> the license of the binary packages, then why is my word that this is also
> the case for the GFDL docs in my package not sufficient to warrant an
> exception for those docs? Since when is the word of a DD not good enough
> for this, absent evidence to the contrary?
We also discussed several time the build system used by schilly which had
severe implications on the legality of the whole package. So it's
required to take into account the license of such files and yet we don't
require to document it in debian/copyright.
I think it's fine to not require it as it adds no value to the end
user and the ftpmasters have their own tools anyway to cross-check
all the files and debian/copyright as evidenced by this discussion.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :