Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> > wrote: > ... > >Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format > >for .debian/copyright ? apparently exist, but I don't understand > >their position yet :-) > > I'd be one of those.
Thank you for your explanation; after reading it, I would not actually classify your position as stated above :-) > Whenever you add new structural rules on a file it creates more > things one needs to know, more things to get wrong, and more work. > This is inevitable. Yes. > To counter this, I see some very minor potential benefit. IANADD, so > I don't get a vote, but if I did, I'd be against it. Okay, so it's not that you're against having a machine-parseable format for the file, but that you don't yet see that the benefit outweighs the cost. > The cost/benefit ratio of the proposal is certainly open to > reasonably varying opinions, so I don't expect arguing over > different perceptions to have a lot of benefit. I do think it's > worth (once) pointing out why I don't like the concept. As I understand your position, it's not the concept that you don't like, but your perception of the cost:benefit ratio. Is that a fair restatement? > I'll convert my packages when it's required by policy. Okay. Certainly I would hope there will be demonstrable (as opposed to the merely potential) benefits to such a format, before anyone considers making it mandatory. -- \ “I wrote a song, but I can't read music so I don't know what it | `\ is. Every once in a while I'll be listening to the radio and I | _o__) say, ‘I think I might have written that.’” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
