Re: Proposal for new version mangling rule when ML-Policy takes effect
Hi Andrius,
Thanks for your comment.
On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 08:49:38AM +0300, Andrius Merkys wrote:
> Looking at the ML-Policy, it seems to me that "+mlp" would mostly be
> used to signal stripping of ToxicCandy models, which have DFSG-compliant
> licenses, but are derived from non-free/unknown data/software. NonFree
> models are non-DFSG by definition, so "+dfsg" covers them well.
Indeed.
> >From what I see it seems "+ds" and "+repack" are used as catch-all
> suffixes to mark any modification to the source tarballs, not
> necessarily stemming from the DFSG. I am not entirely sure what would be
> the benefits of using "+mlp" suffix. Could you please provide your
> rationale for it?
The advantage I'm thinking of by appending "+mlp" is that packages
affected by ML-Policy are much easier to be identified. Given the fact
that the documentation is still somewhat experimental, maybe an unique
identifier other than "+dfsg" can be more helpful if we want to double
check when revising ML-Policy?
Reply to: