Bug#64437: PROPOSED] Must/Should/May in policy
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 01:07:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> If it results in unbuildable packages, that's an RC bug anyway. If it
> doesn't, then it's just something that should be fixed, which makes it
> just a regular bug.
If half of the package is missing because of an undetected error in the
build process, it's a RC bug. It's better to leave this as is.
> > > - 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'.
>
> So a normal bug should be filed against dpkg because it doesn't place a
> script in /etc/init.d to start or stop services at boot time or during
> a change of runlevel?
dpkg? I thought this refers to the relevant packages... maybe it would be
better to say something like:
Packages that include daemons for system services should place scripts in
<tt>/etc/init.d</tt> to start or stop services at boot time or during a
change of runlevel.
> > 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)?
>
> How're you meant to use it? Naively it seems to give a 137k diff for these
> changes, which seems long and painful to read through too
For purely wording changes, it's better, IME. Also, try what is in the
manpage:
wdiff -1n foo.old foo | sed -e 's/^/ /;/{+/s/^ /|/;s/{+//g;s/+}//g'
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: