Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:35:06PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > > Or the package's name may > ^^^ > > > > be an abbreviated version, and the longer name put in the Provides > > > > field. > > > > > > Require is probably too strong, but I suggest this should instead read: > > > > > > or the package's name may be abbreviated. If the package does not > ^^^ > > > use the full name, it should include the full name in the Provides > ^^^^^^ > > > field. > > > > I have no problem with that wording, but I fail to see how it is any > > different from the original wording. My original wording doesn't say > > "and the longer name OPTIONALLY put in the Provides field", it says you > > can abbreviate the name AND put the longer name in the provides field. > > Actually it does say that, although I don't think you meant it that > way. The original wording captures the Provides bit under a 'may' > clause; I have moved it to a 'should' clause.
My original wording uses a may clause for the conjunction consiting of (abbreviated_name && full_name_in_provides_field). You can't get away with just doing one. At least that's the way I use the English language. If you really think it's unclear I have no problem with your wording. -- see shy jo
