On Wednesday 27 May 2009 17:22:19 Andrew McMillan wrote: > 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'."
Or perhaps this: "... either a list of specific architectures and/or architecture wildcards separated by spaces, or the special values 'any' or 'all'." -- Regards, Andres -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
