Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > 4. As you discovered, finding the training data, even when upstream has > retained it (which I suspect will not always be the case, since I > expect in at least some cases upstream would just start over if they > wanted to retrain the model and therefore would view at least some of > the training data as equivalent to ephemeral object files they would > discard), is not going to be easy since almost no one cares. This is of > course not a new problem in free software, and we have long experience > with telling upstreams that no, we really do care about all of the > source code, but it is incrementally more work of a type that most > Debian packagers truly dislike doing.
This makes me wonder what "the preferred form for modification" is when it comes to training data for gnubg (and the related examples discussed here), if the answer is "if we needed to re-train the model for whatever reason we'd start from scratch". [in any case, I think I'd +1 the suggestion else-thread to hold off applying any of this until after the trixie release] Matthew -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org
