"Adam D. Barratt" <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes: > Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Reject Reasons: >> openjdk-6-jre: Overriden tag no-copyright-file found, but this tag >> may not be overridden. >> >> /usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-jre-headless is a symlink to openjdk-6-jre, >> which are both in openjdk-6-jre-headless. openjdk-6-jre depends on >> openjdk-6-jre-headless. While unusual this is not a violation of >> policy. > I'd argue that the intention of policy 12.5 is certainly that package A > must contain /usr/share/doc/A, either directly or as a symlink to > /usr/share/doc/B. Policy uses "<package>" throughout when it means the > precise name of a binary package containing the file being discussed. > Russ, any thoughts? Is this a case of the wording in Policy needing some > tightening? Adam is correct for how we've handled this in the past. We don't require that copyright file extractors have a full implementation of the dependency algorithm, only that they be able to follow one link in the dependency chain. Past bug reports on Lintian about this have been rejected with that reason. I'm not entirely adverse to changing this, but it would be a change from how we've historically handled it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
