On Fri, 2025-08-15 at 10:20 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: [...] > I think the point of the bug report is that we should consider adding a > keyword like "license-text" to the standard to allow explicitly tagging > such files without having each person come up with their own.
Exactly.
[...]
> I'm not sure they should have their own license block, since the whole
> point is that we're ignoring them. Maybe there should be a new field that
> lists ignored files that don't need to be documented in debian/copyright
> for whatever reason? Although I'm not sure this generalizes; I can't
> off-hand think of another case besides license texts.
I think copyright/license information is precisely the special case that
does merit special treatment in debian/copyright.
> I suppose that mechanism could be a Lintian override, and that's not a bad
> answer here. Maybe this case is uncommon enough that an override would be
> fine and it's overkill to add a field?
I've gone with overrides for now, but I would prefer to have a proper
way to document these files.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today,
ignorance or apathy?
A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
