Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:02:43AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to >>> + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to the >>> + procedure described in the Debian Developer's Reference >>> + (see <ref id="related">). The maintainer then >> "It will" makes it sound like that the former maintainer has nothing to >> do. "It should" would be more appropriate IMO. > But "should" is a magic, normative verb in policy, so I avoided using it > here even though it's the natural choice... :) Hm, but actually, isn't the magic of "should" appropriate here? If a package is unmaintained but not orphaned, that *is* a bug, which is what "should" means. Admittedly, Policy normally only governs the contents of packages and not procedural issues in Debian like orphaning, but this sort of straddles the boundary. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
