On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 07:01:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Since there don't seem to be any objections to the principle of this, > I'd like to formally propose that we clarify the significance of the > various policy guidelines with more precise musts and shoulds.
This I second... but the diff itself still has a few issues. > @@ -1046,12 +1065,12 @@ > <p> > Every time you put more than one shell command (this > includes using a loop) in a makefile command you > - <em>must</em> make sure that errors are trapped. For > + should make sure that errors are trapped. For > simple compound commands, such as changing directory and This must remain a `must', not doing so usually results in incomplete or unbuildable packages. > However, because '/usr/local' and its contents are for > - exclusive use of the local administrator, a package must > + exclusive use of the local administrator, a package should > not rely on the presence or absence of files or > directories in '/usr/local' for normal operation.</p> Why not `must' here? > @@ -1370,7 +1389,7 @@ > <heading>Writing the scripts</heading> > > <p> > - Packages can and should place scripts in > + Packages may place scripts in > <tt>/etc/init.d</tt> to start or stop services at boot > time or during a change of runlevel. These scripts should > be named <tt>/etc/init.d/<var>package</var></tt>, and they Leave the `should'. > @@ -2193,7 +2211,7 @@ > </p> > > <p> > - Please make sure that you use only released versions of > + You should make sure that you use only released versions of > shared libraries to build your packages; otherwise other > users will not be able to run your binaries > properly. Producing source packages that depend on This must be a `must', because unfulfilled dependency is a Severity: grave bug (or at least Severity: important). > <p> > + Each program, utiltiy, function and configuration file should > + have an associated manpage included in the same package.</p> > + Leave including of other proposals to the policy maintainers :) All in all, I must state for the record :) that reading a unified diff of the document wasn't quite a joyful experience. Maybe we should be using wdiff (that means `word diff', see the package for details)? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
