On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 07:25:58PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 19:23 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway
> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 19:19 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:17:30 -0600
> > "Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I find the reading of && || to be a little hard. Wouldnt it be
> > > to use the or as in the Perl license way? or was there a legal reason
> > > for not to.. beyond that I think the two are good.Parenthesis I do not
> > > have a problem with.
> > Machine parsing? '||' and '&&' is easier to
catch/parse than 'or' and
> > 'and' perhaps? Just guessing.
> This is precisely why.
Looks entirely over the top to me. Can we make packaging any harder ?
I'm all for somewhat accurate license tags, but if the goal is to make
spec files machine parsable, then why not go to xml straight away ?
And what is the purpose of commenting licenses in the file list, apart
from making the packagers life miserable ?
Matthias is right, I start feeling like if we're trying to top Debian
on the area of over-bureaucratisation.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net