Re: MUST and SHOULD in policy
On 05-May-00, 10:36 (CDT), Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> Maybe something more like:
>
> In this manual, the words *must*, *should* and *may*, and
> the adjectives *required*, *recommended* and *optional*, are
> used to distinguish the signifance of the various guidelines in
> Debian policy. Packages that do not conform to policy guidelines
> denoted by the word *must* (or *required*) will generally not be
> considered acceptable for the Debian distribution, but packages
> should generally adhere to most of the guidelines denoted
> by *should* (or *recommended). Guidelines denoted by *may*
> (or *optional*) are truly optional, adherence is left to the
> maintainer's discretion.
>
> These classifications also map neatly to the bug severities
> *important* (for *required* items), *normal* (for *recommended*
> items) and *wishlist* (for *optional* items).
>
> Better rephrasings would be appreciated, but I would like to keep the
> link between "must" and "severity: important".
....will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian
distribution. Packages that do no conform to policy guidelines denoted
by the word *should* (or *recommended*) may be accepted, but the
maintainer should be prepared to justify the exception.
> [multi/group-maintainers]
> Actually I was under the impression the flamewar had been resolved, but
> just not documented. Nevermind.
It may well have been...I stopped following it after a while...if nobody
else objects, I'd say throw include your wording.
Regards,
Steve
Reply to: