On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > In this case, I see one rather obvious issue (there may be others): > Steve Langasek has said, in essence > "When A says X, and we have no evidence to the contrary, > we believe A". > Your objection, in essence seems to be > "We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X > is true." > It seems to me that both of these statements are reasonable, > and that neither refutes the other. The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because we should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what upstream says they are. How is that reasonable? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature