Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:47:41AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close
> > adaptation thereof.
>
> +1
>
> > Doing the conversion in all of Policy would be a ton of work, though.
>
> It would be an excellen
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:43:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close
> adaptation thereof. We're sort of reinventing the wheel here, and we're
> not doing a very good job of it in terms of consistency and shared
> understanding of the
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> I believe it should also document the N.N standard for
>> NMUs of non-native packages, since people don't seem inclined to change to
>> +nmu and there's probably no reason to do so.
I suppose this isn't a compelling argument, but it's just
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 at 09:32:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
> > being a non-native speaker, I sometimes make the error of
> > understanding “may not” as “it is allowed to (one may) not do”, while
> > it rather means “must not”. Like for instance in the recent discussion
> > a
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Russ Allbery [111026 00:43]:
>> I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close
>> adaptation thereof. We're sort of reinventing the wheel here,
> There is also those previous art called "language". I do not think it
> makes sense at all to sw
* Russ Allbery [111026 00:43]:
> I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close
> adaptation thereof. We're sort of reinventing the wheel here,
There is also those previous art called "language". I do not think it
makes sense at all to switch from the wheel to some cogwheel
6 matches
Mail list logo
