On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:16:19AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > While I support the use of this format, I am worried that having it suggested > by dh-make would create a standard despite it is still a draft. For instance, > if hundreds of package use a given field name with a given syntax, it becomes > naturally an argument against their modification, and in my opinion it is very You have certainly phrased it much better than I have, but this is the reason why I have not implemented the change in dh-make.
Once there is a general consensus about what these files look like and preferably the format is in a non-draft standard, then I will look at implementing it. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
