Bug#729354: Uscan Files-Excluded (Was: [SoB] Re: RFS: auto-07p/0.9.1+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- software for continuation and bifurcation problems in ODE)
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:02:26PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > ./07/tek2ps/ have been removed from sources
> > >
> > > where exactly is the problem that you can not give pattern by pattern
> > > comments?
> >
> > Yep. Perhaps, this is a reason to improve this comment.
>
> >From my perspective there is no reason for this.
Well, it really helps me. It take a time for me to remember
why exactly this stuff isn't dfsg-free.
> It would not be machine readable in any case.
Why?
An example:
-->8--
Removed-Files: ./07/tek2ps/
Comment: Not DFSG-free - commercial reproduction prohibited.
Removed-Files: some other pattern
Comment: New comment.
-->8--
And so on (Removed-Files in this example - a new paragraphs type,
like Files). Different patterns - different comments. Bah,
we can even use License header here.
> In how far do comments need to be machine readable. We are talking
> about comments and comments are by definition free text and there is no
> need to parse this. So I keep on failing to see the advantage of
> "Removed-Files" over "Files-Excluded" and your arguments do not really
> convince me.
See above example. You can separate comments for different
patterns (different Removed-Files paragraphs).
> > PS: I'm DM, so - you can grant me upload permission
> > for this package if you trust my work enough.
>
> Fine for me but if I'm not misleaded the package needs to pass new
> before this permission can be granted.
Ok, lets wait a bit.
Reply to: