Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement
> some functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you
> may think, policy is not dpkg documentation).
Policy is also not something that should document something that isn't
implemented(by your own admission).
And people reading fields is not a valid counter-argument. People can read
*any* field, so you could argue that policy can document *any* field.