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

Bug#64437: PROPOSED] Must/Should/May in policy



On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 06:32:00PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> 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 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.

If it actually causes problems, it's an RC bug, but that's because of
the problems it causes; if it doesn't cause problems, it doesn't matter as
much. It's still worth filing a bug about, but if it's not causing problems,
then why throw the whole package out?

Making it a "must" doesn't make the bug any easier to detect, or any easier
to fix, or, I'd hope, any less likely to be fixed in a package that's getting
updated.

> > > > -	    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.

Okay, that works for me.

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: pgpEJ9fon_ypW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: