On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:18:13PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:23:52PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > Other reasons that are ... ? cf. <1244737135.14878.211.ca...@shizuru> > > I guess various people have various reasons. > > Personally, I consider having debian/copyright be machine-parseable to > be a good thing in general; after all, all the other meta-information is > already machine-parseable. > > The data could be used at packages.qa.d.o or packages.d.o to indicate to > developers or users what license a package is under without them having > to download it and/or manually inspect the copyright links (that would > only be feasable for relatively clear-cut copyright situations, like > everything being under GPLv2+ e.g.). > > The data could also be used by package managers to sort along licenses > (I wouldn't want to search that way, but maybe some people would like). > > Hey, you could even trivially search for packages which are under Joerg > Schilling's copyright, and purge automatically! > > That's some reason I could come up with from the top off my head.
See <1244737135.14878.211.ca...@shizuru>. Moreover, these "reasons" are all pretty pointless if the format is not made mandatory, which is supposedly not the goal. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
