Re: MUST and SHOULD in policy

To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: MUST and SHOULD in policy
From: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 20:30:53 +0300
Message-id: <[🔎] 20000505203053.A14665@kukkaruukku.keltti.jyu.fi>
Mail-followup-to: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20000506013651.A28845@azure.humbug.org.au>; from aj@azure.humbug.org.au on Sat, May 06, 2000 at 01:36:51AM +1000
References: <20000428191045.C15417@azure.humbug.org.au> <20000430233645.B25701@molehole.dhis.org> <[🔎] 20000506013651.A28845@azure.humbug.org.au>

On Sat, May 06, 2000 at 01:36:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>       packages
> 	should generally adhere to most of the guidelines denoted
> 	by *should* (or *recommended).

This is a circular definition and buys nothing.  I recommend:
"... packages that fail the guidelines denoted by SHOULD or RECOMMENDED
are not suitable for the Debian distribution except in exceptional
situations" - or something like that (probably should weaken the condition
a little).

-- 
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%

                    I'm moving IRL on May 2, 2000.
               New contact information on the home page

Reply to:

References:
- Re: MUST and SHOULD in policy
  - From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

Prev by Date: Re: I have a beef with policy 3.3.3
Next by Date: Re: MUST and SHOULD in policy
Previous by thread: Re: MUST and SHOULD in policy
Next by thread: Re: MUST and SHOULD in policy
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread