On Mon, 14 May 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> But I always thought that we were supposed to documented license and
> copyright holders of all files in the _source_ package, so having
No.
The copyright file exists for the binary packages, and the binary
packages alone. ftpmasters require the complete
Hi,
> having
> copyright files that vary with binary package doesn't make sense to me.
I struggled with that as well while rewriting the copyright check.
Lintian will soon ignore per-package copyrights in ./debian. It will
also produce errors.
Lintian may further print errors when copyright
(There seems to be a bunch of UTF-8 damage in the quoted message.)
Emanuele Rocca e...@debian.org writes:
On 09/05 07:51, Jakub Wilk wrote:
This is correct. It's a violation of Policy §12.5: âA copy of
the file which will be installed in
â/usr/share/doc/package/copyrightâ should be in
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org, 2012-05-14, 02:45:
(There seems to be a bunch of UTF-8 damage in the quoted message.)
Yes, BTS mangled my message. :(
This is correct. It's a violation of Policy 12.5: A copy of the file
which will be installed in '/usr/share/doc/package/copyright'
should be
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
But I always thought that we were supposed to documented license and
copyright holders of all files in the _source_ package, so having
copyright files that vary with binary package doesn't make sense to me.
Well, we're supposed to document the copyright
* Emanuele Rocca e...@debian.org, 2012-05-09, 19:23:
lintian reports a no-debian-copyright warning for packages that supply
a copyright file in debian/$pkgname.copyright
This is correct. It's a violation of Policy §12.5: âA copy of the file
which will be installed in
6 matches
Mail list logo
