control: tag -1 -patch +pending Hello, On Wed, Dec 27 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Is this part just a line-wrapping change? If so, feel free to check > it in directly to make the normative diff easier to review. No: s/required part of the complete source/part of the complete source/. I can't recall why that change was made but 'required' is simply redundant, so it's non-normative. >> +This field should not be used for purposes other than satisfying >> +license or DFSG requirements to provide full source code. In >> +particular, it should not be used to enable finding packages that >> +should be rebuilt against newer versions of their build >> dependencies. > > This feels overly aggressive to me: if the field is already set, why > wouldn't I use it to find packages to rebuild? I think the intent is > something closer to "In particular, it should not be added solely to > enable finding packages that should be rebuilt [...]". Indeed that was the intent. I've s/used/added solely/ twice. > That said, seconded. Thanks for the review! -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature