On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:21:38PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > Joel Aelwyn writes: > > Because policy, unlike RFCs, does not use normative declarations such as > > SHOULD and MUST... > > >From debian-policy: > In the normative part of this manual, the words must, should and may, and > the adjectives required, recommended and optional, are used to > distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in this policy > document. Packages that do not conform to the guidelines denoted by must > (or required) will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian > distribution. Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or > recommended) will generally be considered a bug, but will not > necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution. Guidelines > denoted by may (or optional) are truly optional and adherence is left to > the maintainer's discretion.
Hmmm. That contradicts what I got told the last time I filed a wishlist bug
asking for the policy to clearly indicate the normative usages. Oh well,
either times change or someone was mistaken.
I *like* normative usages. I just also like them to be obvious.
--
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
