[Fedora-packaging] Re: License Tag Draft

[Axel Thimm]

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 at gmail.com> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070727/bfbb08f8/attachment.sig>