On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:32:19AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Hi, > > what is the reason why in the following sentence in Policy: > > ,---- > | The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or postrm > | scripts require the package to be present in order to run. > `---- > > the word "should" is used, not "must"? I'm asking here (not on -policy) > because I assume there must be a technical reason for it, but I really > can't think of any. > > If a package is missing a Depends, and therefore will routinely fail in > prerm or postrm --remove, isn't that a release-critical bug?
Because policy, unlike RFCs, does not use normative declarations such as
SHOULD and MUST (note the reason for uppercasing them in RFCs - to indicate
that they are, in fact, normative).
--
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
