Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@debian.org> writes: > Concerning base64-encoded text files, it's quite borderline. Possibly > some editor do support opening base64-encoded files, then it's fine to > have this as source code. Otherwise I don't see it as the preferred > format for modifications.
This is not what preferred form of modification means, as I think is apparent from the fact that we distribute tarballs that cannot be opened directly by most editors. I do understand the desire to have the URL in a form that's easily searchable, but I don't think people are thinking through the implications of saying we're not allowed to distribute sources even in formats that are round-trip convertable to editable formats, but have to ensure every artifact is in a form that can be *directly* edited. The implications for the archive would be massive busywork that would have no significant impact on software freedom. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
