On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 17:18:27 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Wed 08 Apr 2020 at 01:18AM +02, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> +The copyright information for files in a package must be copied > >> +verbatim into ``/usr/share/doc/package/copyright``, when > > ^ Shouldn't this and other instances > > of "package" be marked as replaceable text? > > Possibly, though that's an issue with the existing Policy text not this > patch -- perhaps I should just find and replace after applying the patch > from this bug?
Ah right, thought this was specific to this drafting. Sounds good. > > I'm assuming the entire list is supposed to hold at the same time? If > > so perhaps adding an «and» here would make this completely unambiguous. > > Hmm, thanks for the feedback, but I don't think "a; b; and c" is > ambiguous in English, and "a; and b; and c" would be an irregular usage. I guess what I found ambiguous is that "; and" in English does not necessarily have a logic connotation. So one can read it as "item a; item b; and item c" where the and is just there to introduce the next item instead of specifying the content is ANDed. The “when” should make it somewhat clear, but on a quick read it just made me doubt. Take the example list in ch-source.rst “Main building script: ``debian/rules``”: ,--- There are sometimes good reasons to use a different approach. For example, the standard tools for packaging software written in some languages may use another tool; some rarer packaging patterns, such as multiple builds of the same software with different options, are easier to express with other tools; and a packager working on a different packaging helper might want to use their tool. `--- Which I'd take it as an “and” for the list, not for its contents holding true at the same time. :) With the context I guess it is somewhat clearish, but I'd really like to see text that is completely unambiguous for stuff that is normative. > If this really does need clarification it would be better to add "all of > the following" or something before the list. Yes, clarifying before the list starts would work too, and I thought I mentioned it in my reply, but apparently not. Thanks, Guillem
