I don't think it's inconsistent at all. If that legal notice was part of something I did not install, obviously I wouldn't bother with it. But since the software I have installed refers to something that is not automatically installed by it, that is a bug. Maybe the requirement in Debian that symbolic links from a package to files outside the package are OK but only if the outside package is a dependency could serve as an analogy for illustration purposes here. Makes sense?
That's why I said "I believe this bug is not about the wording but I suspect about a missing dependency from unity-control-center to whatever package that privacy panel is located in."
I don't think it's inconsistent at all. If that legal notice was part of something I did not install, obviously I wouldn't bother with it. But since the software I have installed refers to something that is not automatically installed by it, that is a bug. Maybe the requirement in Debian that symbolic links from a package to files outside the package are OK but only if the outside package is a dependency could serve as an analogy for illustration purposes here. Makes sense?
That's why I said "I believe this bug is not about the wording but I suspect about a missing dependency from unity-control- center to whatever package that privacy panel is located in."