--- Begin Message ---
Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> 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@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---