On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 05:54:42PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:30:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > If the sole purpose of the format is to have a machine-parseable format, > > > > if it doesn't apply to all packages, then the fact that it is > > > > machine-parseable is useless, because you won't be able to machine-parse > > > > all copyright information from all packages. > > > > > > Let's remove all "should"s from policy, then, since evidently anything > > > that > > > we don't have 100% compliance with is useless. > > > > Read the first line again. > > The first line ignores every other reason given by the people wanting DEP 5.
Other reasons that are ... ? cf. <1244737135.14878.211.ca...@shizuru> Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
