Re: Bug#21969: debian-policy: needs clarification about Standards-Vers
On Sun, May 10, 1998 at 01:09:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> hamish@debian.org (Hamish Moffatt) wrote on 10.05.98 in <[🔎] 19980510195124.A13218@rising.com.au>:
>
> > > > > Packages only have to specify the first three digits of the
> > > > > version number in the `Standards-Version' field of their source
> > > > > packages.
> > > If it meant "exactly three", I'd have expected to see "Packages have to
> > > specify only the first three digits of the version number in the
> > > `Standards-Version' field of their source packages."
> >
> > They both say the same thing to me -- >= 3.
> > If = 3 was intended, "must" or "should" should be used, as in
>
> What's the difference between "must" and "have to"? I don't see it.
"Packages to have specify only ..." sounds like "Packages only have to
specify", which in turn means packages must specify AT LEAST 3, but
4 is allowed. I think the word `exactly' is exactly the thing that
is required here!
> Now, "should" *is* different in that it allows exceptions.
True, it can, although I thought I heard that when used in formal
documentation, should == must. I should be wrong :-)
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: