Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Based on the arguments I've seen so far, I'm opposed to using the >> package's Standards-Version for this purpose. I think it conflates >> different meanings of that field and will get us into serious trouble >> when it comes to the distinctions between must, should, and >> recommended. > | Policy 5.6.11 Standards-Version > | > | The most recent version of the standards (the policy manual and > | associated texts) with which the package complies. > This field has exactly this meaning. It says the package followes a > certain version of policy, e.g. the one where now there is a MUST > instead of the previous RECOMMENDS. You seem to be ignoring the end of second sentence of my paragraph above, which I wrote precisely because I anticipated this argument. Could you respond to it as well? Not every feature we care about is going to be a must. I would much prefer to see a new control field that explicitly lists the supported features. We're going to need that *anyway* for any feature that's only a should or recommended and not a must (such as supporting noopt or nostrip), and making every should into a must just so that we can use this interpretation of Standards-Version is not a solution. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
