Re: Symlinking /usr/share/doc/package is not allowed
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:32:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: I don't see any objection to symlinking if both packages are created of the same sourcepackage, the second one depends on =first-package-version and (naturally) have the same copyright. It makes it impossible to extract the changelog, copyright file, etc. from the .deb (because it isn't there). There are zero reactions on the #78341 [1] proposal to change your policy that covers an adjacent issue (inclusion of the full GPL text in all GPL'ed packages)... - mdz cu Adrian [1] http://bugs.debian.org/78341 -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Symlinking /usr/share/doc/package is not allowed
* Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030521 02:35]: On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: The policy vetoe to symlinking intends (in my interpretation) two goals. One is to ensure that the licences don't change unintendidly. This could e.g. happen if there is a global file called GPL, the packages link there copyright statement to it, and the GPL-file is incremented from GPL version 2 and later to GPL version 3 by just one misbehaving program. The other is to make sure the copyright file is always available. Both traps are avoided in the case where the documentation directory is symlinked to the base packages directory. What if the user has version 1 of abc installed, and version 2 of abc-doc installed, AND /usr/share/doc/abc-doc is a symlink to /usr/share/doc/abc, AND the copyright changed between version 1 and version 2? It seems you didn't read my mail. I said the second one depends on =first-package-version. If a user really manages to install version 2 of the base-package and version 1 of the development package, in spite of the fact that the development package depends on exactly the same version as base package, he has to live with the results. A user with root priviliges could always make a system unusable if doing too much by hand. Also builing packages with the development package after that will strongly fail, independed of the copyright notice. On the other hand, if the second package is not marked to depend on the same version, that would be a RC-bug that is to be fixed asap. Please fill a bug report regarding wrong dependencies. Also I think it is worth pointing out in this circumstance that I may want to install abc-doc even though abc is not installed or is a different version (eg. to see what the package is like before installing it). You can get that information with the changes file, or extract the package in some subdirectory. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Symlinking /usr/share/doc/package is not allowed
Several packages in Debian depend on another package and symlink their /usr/share/doc/package to the directory of this other package. Section 13.5. of your policy says: -- snip -- 13.5. Copyright information --- Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license in the file `/usr/share/doc/package/copyright'. This file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link. ... -- snip -- This seems to imply that making /usr/share/doc/package a symlink is wrong, too. Unless someone can convince me that my interpretation of your policy is wrong I'll start filing bugs against packages that symlink /usr/share/doc/package to the directory of another package. cu Adrian BTW: I'm not subscribed to debian-devel. -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Symlinking /usr/share/doc/package is not allowed
Unless someone can convince me that my interpretation of your policy is wrong I'll start filing bugs against packages that symlink /usr/share/doc/package to the directory of another package. Policy 13.3 says: ... `/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. ... That is, symlinking this way is allowed. However, symlinking the directory of a package coming from another source, is not. I wonder if any package in Debian does that... -- Gergely Nagy
Re: Symlinking /usr/share/doc/package is not allowed
* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030520 19:20]: Several packages in Debian depend on another package and symlink their /usr/share/doc/package to the directory of this other package. Section 13.5. of your policy says: -- snip -- 13.5. Copyright information --- Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license in the file `/usr/share/doc/package/copyright'. This file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link. ... -- snip -- This seems to imply that making /usr/share/doc/package a symlink is wrong, too. I don't see any objection to symlinking if both packages are created of the same sourcepackage, the second one depends on =first-package-version and (naturally) have the same copyright. The typical case is a base package and a -doc package (or -suid, or -dev). If policy is enforcing to duplicate the files that would really be just a waste of disk space with no gain at all. The policy vetoe to symlinking intends (in my interpretation) two goals. One is to ensure that the licences don't change unintendidly. This could e.g. happen if there is a global file called GPL, the packages link there copyright statement to it, and the GPL-file is incremented from GPL version 2 and later to GPL version 3 by just one misbehaving program. The other is to make sure the copyright file is always available. Both traps are avoided in the case where the documentation directory is symlinked to the base packages directory. Unless someone can convince me that my interpretation of your policy is wrong I'll start filing bugs against packages that symlink /usr/share/doc/package to the directory of another package. Of course I can't veto you of mass-filling bugs. But you really should get a consensus before mass-filling. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Symlinking /usr/share/doc/package is not allowed
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: I don't see any objection to symlinking if both packages are created of the same sourcepackage, the second one depends on =first-package-version and (naturally) have the same copyright. It makes it impossible to extract the changelog, copyright file, etc. from the .deb (because it isn't there). -- - mdz
Re: Symlinking /usr/share/doc/package is not allowed
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: The policy vetoe to symlinking intends (in my interpretation) two goals. One is to ensure that the licences don't change unintendidly. This could e.g. happen if there is a global file called GPL, the packages link there copyright statement to it, and the GPL-file is incremented from GPL version 2 and later to GPL version 3 by just one misbehaving program. The other is to make sure the copyright file is always available. Both traps are avoided in the case where the documentation directory is symlinked to the base packages directory. What if the user has version 1 of abc installed, and version 2 of abc-doc installed, AND /usr/share/doc/abc-doc is a symlink to /usr/share/doc/abc, AND the copyright changed between version 1 and version 2? The user may lookup /usr/share/doc/abc-doc/copyright and get the wrong version. For a good example of why a copyright file might be completely changed between two versions, consider ssh when it changed over to be built from the OpenSSH sources. (It doesn't have a -doc package though). Also I think it is worth pointing out in this circumstance that I may want to install abc-doc even though abc is not installed or is a different version (eg. to see what the package is like before installing it). -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Symlinking /usr/share/doc/package is not allowed
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:02:01AM +1000, Brian May wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: The policy vetoe to symlinking intends (in my interpretation) two goals. One is to ensure that the licences don't change unintendidly. This could e.g. happen if there is a global file called GPL, the packages link there copyright statement to it, and the GPL-file is incremented from GPL version 2 and later to GPL version 3 by just one misbehaving program. The other is to make sure the copyright file is always available. Both traps are avoided in the case where the documentation directory is symlinked to the base packages directory. What if the user has version 1 of abc installed, and version 2 of abc-doc installed, AND /usr/share/doc/abc-doc is a symlink to /usr/share/doc/abc, AND the copyright changed between version 1 and version 2? Then there's an RC bug in the abc-doc package, which should either have a proper versioned dependency or ship its own copy of the copyright info. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpaMWxIyXh0C.pgp Description: PGP signature
