On 29-Jan-01, 20:07 (CST), Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > Anthony> Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a > > Anthony> list of which packages all these tags apply to, and which > > Anthony> they don't? > > Heh. Sure. I'll do it once. And your proposal has no way of > > ensuring the tags are either accurate, or are maintained. > > You'll do it once, or you'll actually maintain them? > > I don't see the point of keeping around non-* tags if no one is going to > make any effort towards keeping them up to date.
Why do you keep agreeing with Manoj in a way that seems to imply you disagree? :-) This is Manoj's point (as I understand it, anyway (and agree with)): The non- tags won't be maintained in a reasonable way, and there is no way for Debian (as a whole) to responsibly encourage people to rely on them, so they are of negative value (because people *will* rely on them). Adding them to policy will just mislead our users (in whatever form: mirrors, cd producers, etc.) into thinking we've actually validated against a given country's laws. Steve -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
