Re: debian/copyright for files not part of the binary packages?
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
> Regarding config.{sub,guess} I do not agree their special handling is
> appropriate, and according to Joerg's mail you forwarded he did not
> either. But the reason has been explained: tons of packages insta-buggy,
> isn't that part of the usual policy process you want to see applied at
> this case?
I've started trying to document the license and copyright of every file in
the source of the packages I maintain, mostly as a personal experiment.
It takes a fairly significant amount of time, at least two to three times
as long as a regular license review and usually on the order of a couple
of hours per package. I think it's a reasonable amount of time to spend,
but it does feel like a waste given that nothing about that review and
record generally improves anything for a Debian user (it's mostly
recording N variations of the Autoconf license for all the random Autoconf
and Automake files).
Hopefully new upstream merges will be easy to handle by comparing diffs
and won't take nearly as long.
I expect that a significant majority of DDs are currently not doing this
level of detailed work on debian/copyright, and it's worth giving the
topic a lot of thought before deciding they should.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: