On Friday 11 April 2014 12:43:48 Stuart Prescott wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: > > I think you are perfectly entitled to let the people who care about > > the Debian menu take care of that testing. > > As others have pointed out, that's a level a lot lower in everyone's > current understanding of what "should" means in the context of policy. This > may not be what was intended by the policy authors, but I think the average > maintainer reads "should" as something that *they* are supposed to do > unless they have a good technical reason. As Russ has pointed out, that is > certainly how it is presented to new maintainers in our mentors process and > there is an expectation there that the maintainer (not some other 3rd > party) is will ensure that their packages conform to the million little > "should"s in policy. > > Policy already lists "may" as the word to use for things that are optional. > To me, Ian's statement above sounds a lot like a suggestion that packages > *may* provide trad menu files, not *should* provide. And if I'm not mistaken, that is precisely what was done until Bill reverted the patch. I do also agree with Russ here that redefining "should" is not a good idea at all, specially because most of us understand that as Stuart just wrote (with some little rephrasing): should: "something that a maintainer is supposed to do unless they have a good technical reason" -- "Los promotores del software privativo demonizan algo tan básico y ético como el hecho de compartir imponiendo términos como el de 'pirata'. Equiparan ayudar al prójimo con atacar barcos. Cuando me preguntan qué pienso de la piratería musical e informática digo que atacar barcos es muy malo y, que yo sepa, los piratas no usan computadoras.” Richard Stallman, 05/11/2008, anexo de la Cámara de Diputados, Argentina Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.