Am Samstag, den 16.12.2017, 13:20 +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
>
> If it is "not worth [your] time" to cover _all_ sources for the
> project you are maintaining then perhaps you should team up with
> someone who does find it worthwhile to do that part of the packaging
> maintenance - because that part of the packaging maintenance is not
> optional in Debian!
You are aware that Steve started this discussion because boost was
rejected, and boost _is_ team maintained in the "Debian Boost Team".
Now I don't know how many members this team has, but since I co-
maintain the insigttoolkit4 package with Steve (another ~14k source
file package with many different contributors) I can certainly say that
he is not one who would turn down anyone trying to help.
Back to the original topic: I agree with those that see not much value
in putting per-file copyright statements into d/copyright. Obviously
the licenses should be listed, and I think acknowledging the authors in
a summary statement makes sense - after all in a binary package the
source files are not available, and hence the list of contributors may
not be available unless we add it. - However, per source file
copyrights in a binary package that doesn't even ship (most of) the
referenced source files don't make much sense to me, and within the
source package the copyright information is directly available anyway.
Unless there is a legally binding reason to add individual copyrights
to d/copyright, I'd vote for only a summary statement that lists all
contributors for a package.
Best,
Gert
