Ludovico Gardenghi wrote: > I'm not sure there is a really > clean way to deal with this without uselessly breaking backward > compatibility. It seemed cleaner than keeping 3:1:0 and creating > symlinks .so.2 -> .so.3 or similar.
Makes sense. > Uhm, ok. I started creating an "unified" copyright file but I noticed I > was duplicating information by hand -- then I thought it would have been > better to make without debian/copyright rather than to have to keep > debian/copyright in sync with debian/*.copyright manually, with the > potential inconsistencies this could generate. But if that's required I > can do it. Oh, that seems reasonable. This seems to have been discussed recently on the debian-policy list (search for "I don't think there's much gain in relaxing this"): http://bugs.debian.org/556015#141 http://bugs.debian.org/556015#224 If I understand correctly, it probably would not be too harmful to allow the split-up style, but for simplicity policy doesn't allow it currently. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
