Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1020205 > unrolled thread

Bug#672284: lintian: False positive: no-debian-copyright when packages supply debian/$pkgname.copyright

Started byThorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>
First post2020-08-02 22:00 +0200
Last post2020-08-02 22:00 +0200
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Bug#672284: lintian: False positive: no-debian-copyright when packages supply debian/$pkgname.copyright Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de> - 2020-08-02 22:00 +0200

#1020205 — Bug#672284: lintian: False positive: no-debian-copyright when packages supply debian/$pkgname.copyright

FromThorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>
Date2020-08-02 22:00 +0200
SubjectBug#672284: lintian: False positive: no-debian-copyright when packages supply debian/$pkgname.copyright
Message-ID<Azsjf-1CS-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
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 copyright/licence
of the upstream sources to be present in the origtgz (I once had
one where the licence was not present in the tarball but added
in a debian diff; this was deemed inacceptable (mirrors must be
permitted to redistribute only a part), and debian/ is often not
even worth documenting.

I’ve had a package with a debian/copyright.in that copied, at
build time, the upstream copyright notice at the end. This was
deemed acceptable but not nice, and I ended up changing it to
doing to in the clean target (so the source package ships both
debian/copyright.in and debian/copyright) but this was strictly
for tooling/QA.

This is, by the way, one of the reasons why I think DEP 5 to be
complete nōnsense. It doesn’t fit the Debian model.

And yes, it’s completely acceptable to have diverging copyright
files between binary packages.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
[17:15:07] Lukas Degener: Kleines Asterix-Latinum für Softwaretechniker:
	   veni, vidi, fixi(t) ;-)

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist


csiph-web