On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 07:32:00AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: > Chris Lamb: > > Hi, > > > >> the suggested work around for now is not policy compliant. > > > > Well spotted. Would that matter though? I mean, nobody should be uploading > > packages to Debian with nodoc anyway, surely? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > I suspect it could matter. > > It is my understanding that the nodoc profile will be useful for > bootstrapping architectures. As such members of the project may have in > interest in temporarily distributing such binaries when bootstraping new > ports (e.g. on d-ports or otherwise). > This could have legal repercussions where distribution permission > requires the inclusion of the license texts themselves. While it is > certainly not Debian main itself, it could affect Debian contributors. > Accordingly, I am concerned with dismissing the policy text as "irrelevant".
Well, here's what I'm about to do in the next upload of stunnel4:
ifneq (,$(filter nodoc,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
override_dh_installdocs:
mkdir -p $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/share/doc/stunnel4
install -c -o root -g root -m 644 $(CURDIR)/debian/copyright
$(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/share/doc/stunnel4/
endif
Yep, I know, duplication of work and stuff, but it kind of works.
G'luck,
Peter
--
Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@freebsd.org p...@storpool.com
PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
