On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> writes: > > Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07) > > >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that depends on > >> "license-common-list", and ISO image provides both, then? It would be > >> no regressions. > > I do wonder why we've never done this. Does anyone know? common-licenses > is in an essential package so it doesn't require a dependency and is > always present, and we've leaned on that in the past in justifying not > including those licenses in the binary packages themselves, but I'm not > sure why a package dependency wouldn't be legally equivalent. We allow > symlinking the /usr/share/doc directory in some cases where there is a > dependency, so we don't strictly require every binary package have a > copyright file.
Or we could generate DEBIAN/copyright from debian/copyright using data in license-common-list at build time. So maintainers would not need to manage the copying themselves. Cheers, Bill
