On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:08:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * Some rewording to reflect the new must/should/may policy.
> - Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System
> - should be be in a separate binary package from any
> - executables, libraries, or documentation (except that
> - specific to the fonts shipped);
> + Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System must be
> + be in a separate binary package from any executables,
> + libraries, or documentation (except that specific to the
> + fonts shipped).
> + <footnote>
> + This is because the X server may retrieve fonts
> + from the local filesystem or over the network from
> + an X font server; the Debian package system is
> + empowered to deal only with the local filesystem.
> + </footnote>
This seems like a good idea, but why is the alternative unacceptable
(must instead of should)?
Likewise with most of the other changes of that nature: how will violating
the guideline break things? If it doesn't break things, but is always
better off the other way, that's only a reason for a should directive,
not a must.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgptINbS7RvaZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature