On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:44:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> + <item> > >> + All the requirements for using a symlink instead of a > >> + directory as <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var></file> > >> + described in <ref id="addl-docs"> must be met. This means > >> + both packages must come from the same source package and the > >> + package must depend on the package containing its copyright > >> + and distribution license. > >> + </item> > >> + > >> + <item> > >> + There must be a direct dependency on the package containing > >> + the copyright and distribution license. An indirect > >> + dependency via a third package is not sufficient. > >> + </item>
> > Some package currently don't do this, but have an A->B->C dependency, > > where A, B and C are all from the same source package and C contains the > > copyright. I guess it would be good to have some input from a > > maintainer that does that. > Lintian has been warning about this for some time, and I think it may even > be an ftp-master reject at this point. The logic has been that we don't > require software looking for copyright files to implement full transitive > dependency logic, only look in a package and its immediate dependencies. > I'm okay with relaxing that if we come up with good alternative wording, > but it's different from what we've required, I don't agree that this has ever been required prior to the start of ftp-master lintian rejects. Lintian is not the standard for what we require, Policy is; and I don't think "[the package] must be accompanied by a verbatim copy [in /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright]" implied any of these requirements. I think it's clear from context that the intent is to ensure /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright is present *when all of the package's dependencies are installed*; if the intent were otherwise, it could have been stated more simply as "the package must *contain* a verbatim copy [...]". So far from being a simple clarification of Policy, I think this is a change which makes packages buggy under Policy that were not previously. I understand the desire to align the Policy rule with what lintian can reasonably check on a per-source-package basis, but I don't think this should be made a "must" in advance of the archive actually being in conformance. > and I'm not sure it's really worth the effort. It's not that difficult to > add the additional direct dependency, and it amounts to a no-op from the > package management perspective. There are various operations for which the number of package relationships in the archive as a whole, or within a cluster of related packages, dominate the equation. The requirement of an additional direct dependency is reasonable, but not a no-op. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
