On Mon, 14 May 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> But I always thought that we were supposed to documented license and
> copyright holders of all files in the _source_ package, so having
No.
The copyright file exists for the binary packages, and the binary
packages alone. ftpmasters require the complete copyright/licence
of the upstream sources to be present in the origtgz (I once had
one where the licence was not present in the tarball but added
in a debian diff; this was deemed inacceptable (mirrors must be
permitted to redistribute only a part), and debian/ is often not
even worth documenting.
I’ve had a package with a debian/copyright.in that copied, at
build time, the upstream copyright notice at the end. This was
deemed acceptable but not nice, and I ended up changing it to
doing to in the clean target (so the source package ships both
debian/copyright.in and debian/copyright) but this was strictly
for tooling/QA.
This is, by the way, one of the reasons why I think DEP 5 to be
complete nōnsense. It doesn’t fit the Debian model.
And yes, it’s completely acceptable to have diverging copyright
files between binary packages.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
[17:15:07] Lukas Degener: Kleines Asterix-Latinum für Softwaretechniker:
veni, vidi, fixi(t) ;-)
