[Debian-olpc-devel] Sponsorship / review request (multiple activities)

Ankur Khurana ankur at seeta.in
Fri Aug 6 12:32:40 UTC 2010


Hi ,


>  There should be no need to remove COPYING files from binary packages: the
>>> CDBS snippet python-sugar.mk replaces those with a symlink if truly
>>> fully identical to the Debian-shipped file.
>>>
>>>  I was confused here , are you referring to lintian warnings that we
>> tried to remove by adding in install rule? or i am mistaken?
>>
>
> No, I am referring to adding a build rule to explicitly remove COPYING
> files.  Concretely I stumbled across the following in packaging git of the
> Physics activity:
>
>
> install/sugar-physics-activity::
>        rm -f
> debian/sugar-physics-activity/usr/share/sugar/activities/Physics.activity/COPYING
>
>
>
> I believe (but did not test) that above is superfluous, as CDBS snippet
> python-sugar.mk already contains the following:
>
>
>
> # Replace superfluous COPYING files with symlinks
> $(patsubst %,binary-post-install/%,$(DEB_PYTHON_SUGAR_PACKAGES)) ::
> binary-post-install/%:
>        ! test -f
> $(DEB_DESTDIR)/usr/share/sugar/activities/*.activity/COPYING \
>        || ! diff -q /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2
> $(DEB_DESTDIR)/usr/share/sugar/activities/*.activity/COPYING \
>        || ln -sfT ../../../common-licenses/GPL-2
> $(DEB_DESTDIR)/usr/share/sugar/activities/*.activity/COPYING
>
>
> If lintian warns about superfluous licenses files, it might be right, and
> we'd better discuss here before silencing them.
>
> Well, despite it being in CDBS snippets , it was still giving lintian
warnings in my packages , as discussed some time back in list .So regarding
whether to add that rule or not , I need your guidance.I used the same build
rule as in sugar-physics-activity.

Regards,
Ankur
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/attachments/20100806/d1beb675/attachment.htm>


More information about the Debian-olpc-devel mailing list