Bill Allombert <bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Bill, so far you're the only one in #587279 objecting to the >> clarification making the what-you-call "strange interpretation" crystal >> clear (and following the way it was always handled). > Nobody in #587279 is saying that the text is ambiguous. This precisely > why a policy change was proposed in the first place. I've always interpreted the current text to mean what the proposed change says that it should mean, namely that non-default alternatives are okay but the package cannot depend only on a non-free package. That's why I originally was going to commit this as an informative change, since I didn't think it was a normative change from the previous version of Policy. I believed that because that's what Debian has done for as long as I've been involved in it, so I always assumed that was the intended meaning. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
