On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:11:33AM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:On 16/08/10 19:03, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:Also, there is no need to ship the GPL text in the package. It seems like no patch or file tries to read the license, so no need to ship it (we already have the copyright file).The LICENSE.txt file is part of the standard library format.Does anything break if we don't ship it?On all other platforms/distros it'll have that file there, and its visible using the library browser, so it would be only on Debian that you didn't see the license file. I think that sounds like minor but actual breakage.
Would that library browser tolerate a symlink? I do the following with Sugar packages: # Replace superfluous COPYING files with symlinks binary-post-install/SOME-SUGAR-PKG: ! test -f $(DEB_DESTDIR)/usr/share/sugar/activities/*.activity/COPYING \ || ! diff -q /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 $(DEB_DESTDIR)/usr/share/sugar/activities/*.activity/COPYING \ || ln -sfT ../../../common-licenses/GPL-2 $(DEB_DESTDIR)/usr/share/sugar/activities/*.activity/COPYINGAbove, coupled with actually shipping full license in upstream tarball, should cause the file to be replaced with a symlink.
Hope that helps. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers