Bug#555555: openjdk-6 upload rejected by wrong copyright check

[Matthias Klose-6]

Package: ftp.debian.org,lintian
Severity: serious

Reject Reasons:
openjdk-6-jre: Overriden tag no-copyright-file found, but this tag may not be
overridden.

/usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-jre-headless is a symlink to openjdk-6-jre, which are
both in openjdk-6-jre-headless. openjdk-6-jre depends on openjdk-6-jre-headless.
While unusual this is not a violation of policy.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Adam D. Barratt-29]

Matthias Klose wrote:

> Package: ftp.debian.org,lintian
> Severity: serious
>
> Reject Reasons:
> openjdk-6-jre: Overriden tag no-copyright-file found, but this tag
> may not be overridden.
>
> /usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-jre-headless is a symlink to openjdk-6-jre,
> which are both in openjdk-6-jre-headless. openjdk-6-jre depends on
> openjdk-6-jre-headless. While unusual this is not a violation of
> policy.

I'd argue that the intention of policy 12.5 is certainly that package A must
contain /usr/share/doc/A, either directly or as a symlink to
/usr/share/doc/B. Policy uses "<package>" throughout when it means the
precise name of a binary package containing the file being discussed.

Russ, any thoughts? Is this a case of the wording in Policy needing some
tightening?

Adam



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Matthias Klose-6]

On 10.11.2009 14:56, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Package: ftp.debian.org,lintian
>> Severity: serious
>>
>> Reject Reasons:
>> openjdk-6-jre: Overriden tag no-copyright-file found, but this tag
>> may not be overridden.
>>
>> /usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-jre-headless is a symlink to openjdk-6-jre,
>> which are both in openjdk-6-jre-headless. openjdk-6-jre depends on
>> openjdk-6-jre-headless. While unusual this is not a violation of
>> policy.
>
> I'd argue that the intention of policy 12.5 is certainly that package A
> must contain /usr/share/doc/A, either directly or as a symlink to
> /usr/share/doc/B. Policy uses "<package>" throughout when it means the
> precise name of a binary package containing the file being discussed.

hmm, I'd rather say that the intention should be to find the copyright file in
the very same path for every package. a condition which is fulfilled by this
packaging (note that -jre existed before -jre-headless, therefore the unusual
layout).

> Russ, any thoughts? Is this a case of the wording in Policy needing some
> tightening?

I didn't want a policy change ;)

   Matthias



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

"Adam D. Barratt" <adam@...> writes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:

>> Reject Reasons:
>> openjdk-6-jre: Overriden tag no-copyright-file found, but this tag
>> may not be overridden.
>>
>> /usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-jre-headless is a symlink to openjdk-6-jre,
>> which are both in openjdk-6-jre-headless. openjdk-6-jre depends on
>> openjdk-6-jre-headless. While unusual this is not a violation of
>> policy.

> I'd argue that the intention of policy 12.5 is certainly that package A
> must contain /usr/share/doc/A, either directly or as a symlink to
> /usr/share/doc/B. Policy uses "<package>" throughout when it means the
> precise name of a binary package containing the file being discussed.

> Russ, any thoughts? Is this a case of the wording in Policy needing some
> tightening?

Adam is correct for how we've handled this in the past.  We don't require
that copyright file extractors have a full implementation of the
dependency algorithm, only that they be able to follow one link in the
dependency chain.  Past bug reports on Lintian about this have been
rejected with that reason.

I'm not entirely adverse to changing this, but it would be a change from
how we've historically handled it.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:03:51 -0800
with message-id <87bpj7b2pk.fsf@...>
and subject line Re: Bug#555555: openjdk-6 upload rejected by wrong copyright check
has caused the Debian Bug report #555555,
regarding openjdk-6 upload rejected by wrong copyright check
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@...
immediately.)


--
555555: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=555555
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@... with problems

Package: ftp.debian.org,lintian
Severity: serious

Reject Reasons:
openjdk-6-jre: Overriden tag no-copyright-file found, but this tag may not be
overridden.

/usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-jre-headless is a symlink to openjdk-6-jre, which are
both in openjdk-6-jre-headless. openjdk-6-jre depends on openjdk-6-jre-headless.
While unusual this is not a violation of policy.



Matthias Klose <doko@...> writes:

> Reject Reasons:
> openjdk-6-jre: Overriden tag no-copyright-file found, but this tag may not
> be overridden.

> /usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-jre-headless is a symlink to openjdk-6-jre, which
> are both in openjdk-6-jre-headless. openjdk-6-jre depends on
> openjdk-6-jre-headless. While unusual this is not a violation of policy.

The tag that you received, no-copyright-file, indicates that there's no
trace of a copyright file or a /usr/share/doc symlink in that package.
And indeed, openjdk-6-jre in testing has no /usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-jre
file or symlink.  While it depends on another package that provides its
doc directory, there's no pointer in the openjdk-6-jre package to indicate
that this might be the case.

This is definitely a violation of Policy:

    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.

    [...]

    /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.

You must either ship the doc directory in the package with its copyright
file or you must ship in the package a symlink to the doc directory of
another package.  You can't just depend on a second package that provides
a doc directory with the same name as the first package; an automated
copyright extractor is going to have no hope of figuring that out since
there's no symlink telling it which package to look in instead.

Closing this bug accordingly, although I will propose a wording change to
Debian Policy to make this more explicit.  ("Must be accompanied by" means
*in the package*, and Debian Policy should say that.)

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>