Hello, On Sat 04 Jan 2025 at 05:20pm +08, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 23:45 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: >> >> > +A package that needs domain name suffix data from the publicsuffix >> > +binary package would list it in the ``Static-Built-Using`` field like >> > +so: >> >> Perhaps reword these or preface with some text to make them more clear >> they are just some examples for how the field could be used? I mean, I >> guess this is implicit with the “would“, but perhaps making this >> explicit is preferable in a document like this? >> >> (I'm also always a bit conflicted with examples that are based on real >> current package data, because while this are then extremely clear right >> now, they can quickly become obsolete or seem stale or odd after some >> time has passed. :/ But I'm not sure what would be an alternative, and >> I think this is something for the policy editors to weight in if at all.) > > The wording used in the examples and their nature is based on how they have > been written in the Built-Using section already in the policy, which I quote > below: I think that Guillem makes a good point. If there's no alternative, though, an example that might get out-of-date is probably better than no example. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
