On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 08:26:40AM -0500, Jeremy Shaw wrote: >> What about, for example, when the Debian maintainer has carefully >> prepared an accurate debian/copyright, but upstream has changed the >> value of LICENSE? > > Do you mean the License field in the .cabal file?
I actually meant a file ./LICENSE in the root of the upstream tarball. In one package I used cabal-debian on, it merely contains "BSD\n", and that's what debian/copyright was created containing. I assumed cabal-debian copied one to the other, but I guess it could be that the License field was used. In another package I tested, debian/copyright contained a license (but no declaration), so I assumed it came from COPYING. (I was particularly annoyed with upstream because "BSD" is neither a license declaration, nor a license, nor even an unambiguous reference to a license -- *which* BSD license was meant? -- and none of the source code files contained any license declaration either. But that's no cabal-debian's fault.) > I believe that --update-debianization only generates control.new and > changelog.new, and then you get to do the rest by hand right now. OK, that sounds like a reasonable approach to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-haskell-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
