On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 19:41 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach? I > know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how > best to deal with this issue. As you can tell from this patch, I favor > the approach of documenting the specific features that we require and > assuming that their semantics are sufficiently clear in practice. without respect to the "underspecification" mentioned by someone else, i'd like to +1 the addition of the "local" requirement. it's in fact not just a nice addition but an essential one given that LSB-compatible scripts among others silently assume this is already the case. sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part