[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: