Bug#203145: (uploaders in control) Any activity?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:11:52 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> said:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:45:15PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:01:08PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:54:11PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar
>> > wrote:
>> > > Is there any activity on this issue? I just stubled upon this
>> > > when I needed to know whether a multi-line uploaders was
>> > > okay. Since uploaders isn't in policy at all, this is an
>> > > undecided: I cannot possibly break policy by using something
>> > > undocumented, can I?
>> > >
>> > > In any case, there are multiple packages using a multiline
>> > > uploaders (don't recall my heart which, could checkout if
>> > > needed), and all supporting scripts and katie etc seem to
>> > > support it.
>> > >
>> > > So, I propose to explicitly allow that. It makes it better
>> > > readable for the human eye, and for the computerized eye, it
>> > > doesn't matter. (if it isn't explicitly allowed, it's
>> > > disallowed).
>> > I tend to agree. Cc'ing bug.
>> We could take the opportunuity to document Uploaders: in policy,
> Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this bug exactly _about_ documenting
> Uploaders in policy?
Perhaps. But I am missing the ratrionale for the need to
expand policy in this case.
Most people will listen to your unreasonable demands, if you'll
consider their unacceptable offer.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C