Re: First draft of review of policy must usage
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> @@ -113,36 +113,6 @@
> either. Please see <ref id="pkg-scope"> for more information.
> </p>
>
> - <p>
> - In the normative part of this manual,
> - the words <em>must</em>, <em>should</em> and
> - <em>may</em>, and the adjectives <em>required</em>,
> - <em>recommended</em> and <em>optional</em>, are used to
> - distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in
> - this policy document. Packages that do not conform to the
> - guidelines denoted by <em>must</em> (or <em>required</em>)
> - will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian
> - distribution. Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by
> - <em>should</em> (or <em>recommended</em>) will generally be
> - considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package
> - unsuitable for distribution. Guidelines denoted by
> - <em>may</em> (or <em>optional</em>) are truly optional and
> - adherence is left to the maintainer's discretion.
> - </p>
I would suggest we use uppercase[1] to denote must, should, may and
required, recommended, optional to denote the normative usage. This
way we could still use the lowercase word for non-normative usage.
at the very least, this would reduce the size of the proposed diff.
[1] or any typographical distinction that can represented in the
plain text version.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large blue swirl here.
Reply to: