On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:24:19AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 at 22:24:23 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > > Am 29.12.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > > I had to split the game into four digestible pieces (which are in total > > 1.2 GB large). My original idea was to duplicate the copyright file for > > all three data packages but back then this proposal has been harshly > > rejected on debian-mentors (when I wasn't a DD yet) because the > > copyright file would have mentioned files which are not part of a > > specific source package. > > For what it's worth, when I discussed splitting openarena-data with the > ftp team (and then uploaded the split parts through NEW), they didn't > object to the copyright files being identical, with each source package > listing some copyright holders and licenses that actually only exist > in the other source packages from the same group. > > However, I can see that d-mentors wouldn't like that: people sponsoring > random packages (that they themselves aren't necessarily involved or > interested in) will tend to assume that this particular package doesn't > deserve to be a special case, because 95% of the time it doesn't. Making > pragmatic decisions like "this is not what I'd usually do, but in this > case it makes more sense" requires enough context to understand the > costs and benefits that apply.
Yes, cost/benefit should be considered (and was in this case). But please, one should not only evaulate _their_ cost but also the cost this creates on other parties. The goal should be to reduce the overall cost-sum. For example, this particular issue was causing literally thouesands of lintian stuff, so basically rasing the noise level far above the signal. And it would have been easily fixed, as d/copyright was script-generated and the script could have a check implemented to filter the output to the respective packages. > smcv >
