On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-May-00, 04:01 (CDT), Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > <item>
> > <p>
> > - must meet all policy requirements presented in this
> > + should meet all policy requirements presented in this
> > manual.
> > </p>
> This should be worded along the lines of "...presented in the version
> of the this manual recorded in the "Standards-Version:" field in the
> control file."
I was trying to avoid any substantive changes in this proposal, so this
really ought to be another proposal; also, I'm not sure I agree with
letting packages just choose which version of policy they comply with.
Certainly no one *has* to comply with policy, we're all just volunteers
and all, but it's still a bug (albeit perhaps not a very serious one)
if you're not up-to-date.
> > <p>
> > - Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority
> > + Packages should not depend on packages with lower priority
> ^^^^^^
> > values (excluding build-time dependencies). If this does
> > - happen, one of the priority values will have to be adapted.
> > + happen, one of the priority values must be adapted.
> Why isn't that a "must"?
Current practice: (from Josip in the previous thread)
] > <p>
] > - Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority
] > + Packages <em>must not</em> depend on packages with lower priority
] > values (excluding build-time dependencies). If this does
] > happen, one of the priority values will have to be adapted.
] > </p>
] Richard said that this isn't RC.
(I'd expect this to change for woody, personally)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgp6GjQzQ9RQv.pgp
Description: PGP signature