Re: Proposal for new version mangling rule when ML-Policy takes effect

[Andrius Merkys <merkys@debian.org>]

Hi Mo,

On 2020-10-08 15:13, Mo Zhou wrote:
> 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?

I agree that marking packages affected by ML-Policy would be beneficial,
however, I am not sure that version mangling rule is the best way to do
so. Consider an example case where upstream tarball has to be repacked
to exclude both non-DFSG and ToxicCandy contents. In this case suffix
"+dfsg" would be preferred over "+mlp" due to its stronger meaning, thus
losing ML-Policy marker altogether.

Christian's suggestion of XS-ML-Policy field for d/control looks more
appropriate to me. Although I think ML-Policy marker should belong to
d/copyright alongside Files-Excluded and Disclaimer fields.

Best,
Andrius