On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:33 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> > >
> > > Current policy has this wording and I didn't want to change that, so
> > > yes, it's on purpose.
> >
> > Not quite. Current policy says "arch list or 'any' or 'all'" and that's
> > fine (at least for debian/control), because it wouldn't make sense for a
> > binary package's Architecture field to be 'any' or 'all' *plus* an
> > explicit list of architectures.
> > (yes, .dsc might need different rules, but.)
>
> Ok, here's the wording current policy.
> "one may specify a list of architectures separated by spaces, or the special
> values any or all."
>
> Here's part of my proposal.
> one may specify a list of architectures separated by spaces, a list of
> architecture wildcards separated by spaces, or the special values any or all.
As a native english speaker that wording seems to me to imply (list of
specific and/or wildcard architectures) or (any) or (all), which seems
to be what you intend, but I guess it is open to possible
misinterpretation in the manner Julien suggests.
How about:
"... a list of specific and wildcard architectures separated by spaces,
or the special values 'any' or 'all'."
Cheers,
Andrew.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew @ McMillan .Net .NZ Porirua, New Zealand
http://andrew.mcmillan.net.nz/ Phone: +64(272)DEBIAN
Open Source: the difference between trust and antitrust
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
