On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:02:26PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > ./07/tek2ps/ have been removed from sources > > > > > > where exactly is the problem that you can not give pattern by pattern > > > comments? > > > > Yep. Perhaps, this is a reason to improve this comment. > > >From my perspective there is no reason for this.
Well, it really helps me. It take a time for me to remember why exactly this stuff isn't dfsg-free. > It would not be machine readable in any case. Why? An example: -->8-- Removed-Files: ./07/tek2ps/ Comment: Not DFSG-free - commercial reproduction prohibited. Removed-Files: some other pattern Comment: New comment. -->8-- And so on (Removed-Files in this example - a new paragraphs type, like Files). Different patterns - different comments. Bah, we can even use License header here. > In how far do comments need to be machine readable. We are talking > about comments and comments are by definition free text and there is no > need to parse this. So I keep on failing to see the advantage of > "Removed-Files" over "Files-Excluded" and your arguments do not really > convince me. See above example. You can separate comments for different patterns (different Removed-Files paragraphs). > > PS: I'm DM, so - you can grant me upload permission > > for this package if you trust my work enough. > > Fine for me but if I'm not misleaded the package needs to pass new > before this permission can be granted. Ok, lets wait a bit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
