Bug#64437: PROPOSED] Must/Should/May in policy
On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 07:01:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Since there don't seem to be any objections to the principle of this,
> I'd like to formally propose that we clarify the significance of the
> various policy guidelines with more precise musts and shoulds.
This I second... but the diff itself still has a few issues.
> @@ -1046,12 +1065,12 @@
> <p>
> Every time you put more than one shell command (this
> includes using a loop) in a makefile command you
> - <em>must</em> make sure that errors are trapped. For
> + should make sure that errors are trapped. For
> simple compound commands, such as changing directory and
This must remain a `must', not doing so usually results in incomplete or
unbuildable packages.
> However, because '/usr/local' and its contents are for
> - exclusive use of the local administrator, a package must
> + exclusive use of the local administrator, a package should
> not rely on the presence or absence of files or
> directories in '/usr/local' for normal operation.</p>
Why not `must' here?
> @@ -1370,7 +1389,7 @@
> <heading>Writing the scripts</heading>
>
> <p>
> - Packages can and should place scripts in
> + Packages may place scripts in
> <tt>/etc/init.d</tt> to start or stop services at boot
> time or during a change of runlevel. These scripts should
> be named <tt>/etc/init.d/<var>package</var></tt>, and they
Leave the `should'.
> @@ -2193,7 +2211,7 @@
> </p>
>
> <p>
> - Please make sure that you use only released versions of
> + You should make sure that you use only released versions of
> shared libraries to build your packages; otherwise other
> users will not be able to run your binaries
> properly. Producing source packages that depend on
This must be a `must', because unfulfilled dependency is a Severity: grave
bug (or at least Severity: important).
> <p>
> + Each program, utiltiy, function and configuration file should
> + have an associated manpage included in the same package.</p>
> +
Leave including of other proposals to the policy maintainers :)
All in all, I must state for the record :) that reading a unified diff of
the document wasn't quite a joyful experience. Maybe we should be using
wdiff (that means `word diff', see the package for details)?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: