On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:11:03PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line > > > without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in > > > non-free had > > > > Non-DFSG: 3 > > > What about : Non-DFSG: 3 [rationale for 3]. > > I don't think the "3" is good for anything at all. Except perhaps for > reinforcing false assumption that every problem with the DFSG can be > pinpointed at exactly ones of the prongs in the guidelines.
Well, you would naturally list all clauses that fail, each one with a rationale for this particular clause. And the 3 may be nice for statistical purpose or something. Friendy, Sven Luther
