Re: should vs must

[Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:53:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm stronly against putting things about the future in policy. That
> might not be rational, but we'll see. That said...

I'm not suggesting this.  I'm suggesting that we decide whether the
requirement should apply to *every* package or whether some packages
are exempt for whatever reason.  That should be the difference between
MUST/SHOULD, not a question of whether failure to comply is RC or
not.

So we say "Packages MUST specify source dependencies." and in the
annex to policy: "Failure to specify source dependencies is currently
not RC."  Will it ever be considered RC?  We'll revisit that question
when 95% comply.  If we later discover that there should be
exceptions, we can downgrade "MUST" to "SHOULD".

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

         Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
       Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/