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 wrote: > > 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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > I find the reading of && || to be a little hard. Wouldnt it be better > > > > 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
Attachment:
pgpNgolfe0xLL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
