On 05-May-00, 10:36 (CDT), Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > Maybe something more like: > > In this manual, the words *must*, *should* and *may*, and > the adjectives *required*, *recommended* and *optional*, are > used to distinguish the signifance of the various guidelines in > Debian policy. Packages that do not conform to policy guidelines > denoted by the word *must* (or *required*) will generally not be > considered acceptable for the Debian distribution, but packages > should generally adhere to most of the guidelines denoted > by *should* (or *recommended). Guidelines denoted by *may* > (or *optional*) are truly optional, adherence is left to the > maintainer's discretion. > > These classifications also map neatly to the bug severities > *important* (for *required* items), *normal* (for *recommended* > items) and *wishlist* (for *optional* items). > > Better rephrasings would be appreciated, but I would like to keep the > link between "must" and "severity: important".
....will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian distribution. Packages that do no conform to policy guidelines denoted by the word *should* (or *recommended*) may be accepted, but the maintainer should be prepared to justify the exception. > [multi/group-maintainers] > Actually I was under the impression the flamewar had been resolved, but > just not documented. Nevermind. It may well have been...I stopped following it after a while...if nobody else objects, I'd say throw include your wording. Regards, Steve
