From bounce-debian-bugs-dist==chris-lamb.co.uk@lists.debian.org Sun Apr 20 13:20:18 2008
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([82.195.75.100])
	by chris-lamb.co.uk with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <bounce-debian-bugs-dist==chris-lamb.co.uk@lists.debian.org>)
	id 1JnYWj-0006sc-Jd
	for bot.address@chris-lamb.co.uk; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:20:18 +0100
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
	id E6B1413A4ECE; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:20:10 +0000 (UTC)
Old-Return-Path: <debbugs@rietz.debian.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on liszt.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,LDO_WHITELIST,
	MURPHY_SEX_L2,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.2.3
X-Original-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-bugs-dist@liszt.debian.org
Received: from rietz.debian.org (rietz.debian.org [140.211.166.43])
	by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13F713A4E73;
	Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:19:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from debbugs by rietz.debian.org with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <debbugs@rietz.debian.org>)
	id 1JnYRr-00067x-N4; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:15:11 +0000
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#476810: Please clarify 12.5, "Copyright information"
Reply-To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 476810@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:15:11 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.476810.B476810.12086935083719@bugs.debian.org>
X-Debian-PR-Message: followup 476810
X-Debian-PR-Package: debian-policy
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Debian-PR-Source: debian-policy
Received: via spool by 476810-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B476810.12086935083719
          (code B ref 476810); Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:15:11 +0000
Received: (at 476810) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Apr 2008 12:11:48 +0000
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
	MURPHY_SEX_L2,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.4-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de ([130.149.17.13])
	by rietz.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>)
	id 1JnYOZ-0000wS-SA
	for 476810@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:11:48 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost-12225.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E794E2E5
	for <476810@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:11:43 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 12224)
	with ESMTP id syQQIAPlGR55 10749-19;
	Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:11:41 +0200 (MEST) 13679
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP;
	Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:11:41 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from doko@localhost)
	by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.3/Submit) id m3KCBeth017798;
	Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:11:40 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <18443.13052.430174.273119@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:11:40 +0200
To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
Cc: 476810@bugs.debian.org
In-Reply-To: <87ve2dtxtt.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <18441.51001.792418.488560@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
	<87ve2dtxtt.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 21) "Educational Television" XEmacs Lucid
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.tu-berlin.de (including SpamAssassin)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:15:11 +0000
X-Debian-Message: from BTS
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2007-10-04_01
X-Mailing-List: <debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/343463
X-Loop: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-bugs-dist.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org
Received-SPF: none
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-Spam-Score: -35.0
X-Spam-Report: (-35.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-50 D_FOR_BOT              For debian-devel-changes bot
	0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY      Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	18 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Russ Allbery writes:
> Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
> 
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 3.7.3.0
> >
> > 12.5 currently reads: "/usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to
> > another directory in /usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come
> > from the same source and the first package Depends on the second. These
> > rules are important because copyrights must be extractable by mechanical
> > means."
> >
> > Proposing to clarify this to "... come from the same source and the
> > first package directly or indirectly depends on the second ...". For the
> > intention mentioned in the last sentence ("must be extractable by
> > mechanical means") it doesn't matter if the dependency is direct or
> > indirect. If there are other reasons for the stricter direct dependency,
> > please clarify this as "directly depends".
> 
> I'm not sure that I see any need for a change here.

see http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2008/04/msg00052.html
 > - usr-share-doc-symlink-without-dependency
 >   is an explicit policy violation and not allowed.
and the followups.

> To resolve indirect
> dependencies requires more of the logic of a package manager and may
> require installing quite a large number of packages, whereas the current
> requirement only requires one level of dependency handling.  Therefore,
> the current requirement does indeed make copyrights more extractable by
> mechanical means.

this still can be done.

> I'm also not sure what the motivation would be for relying on an indirect
> dependency.  Doing so is generally strongly discouraged in Debian because
> it's inherently fragile; it's too easy to change the downstream package's
> dependencies without realizing the effect on upstream packages.

no, this is still for binaries built from the same source, you don't
need a package manager for this kind of dependency handling.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


