Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The goal is to ensure that the copyright file is always installed and >> accurate for that binary package, so it must be impossible for it to be >> symlinked to another package that isn't a dependency or that doesn't >> come from exactly the same source package (since licensing information >> changes). > Okay, so that would mean that the package containing the symlink would > need to Depend on the same upstream version of the other package. This > rules out using the scheme for latex-cjk, but it does make sense for > libraries: They have a common copyright, the -dev package usually > depends on the exact same version of the package with the runtime files, > and it does not make sense to put all the developer documentation into > the runtime package. Yeah, agreed. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to allow directory linking and not linking of the individual file. It seems like the same issues apply either way. I can see not even allowing directory linking due to the parsing difficulties and trouble for automatic copyright file extraction, but whether the whole directory or just the file is linked, the same concerns apply. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
