On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 21-May-00, 04:01 (CDT), Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > <item> > > <p> > > - must meet all policy requirements presented in this > > + should meet all policy requirements presented in this > > manual. > > </p> > This should be worded along the lines of "...presented in the version > of the this manual recorded in the "Standards-Version:" field in the > control file."
I was trying to avoid any substantive changes in this proposal, so this really ought to be another proposal; also, I'm not sure I agree with letting packages just choose which version of policy they comply with. Certainly no one *has* to comply with policy, we're all just volunteers and all, but it's still a bug (albeit perhaps not a very serious one) if you're not up-to-date. > > <p> > > - Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority > > + Packages should not depend on packages with lower priority > ^^^^^^ > > values (excluding build-time dependencies). If this does > > - happen, one of the priority values will have to be adapted. > > + happen, one of the priority values must be adapted. > Why isn't that a "must"? Current practice: (from Josip in the previous thread) ] > <p> ] > - Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority ] > + Packages <em>must not</em> depend on packages with lower priority ] > values (excluding build-time dependencies). If this does ] > happen, one of the priority values will have to be adapted. ] > </p> ] Richard said that this isn't RC. (I'd expect this to change for woody, personally) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark
pgpolsRG8lhNK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
