On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:21:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:18:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:04:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Certainly, having split packages would make it *easier* to cope with this, > > > and that's a good reason to make it policy, but it's not enough of a reason > > > to remove dosemu from the distribution. IMO. > > Why would dosemu need to be removed from the distribution? > > Because that's what violating a "must" directive *means*. It's the sole > difference between "should" and "must": either's a bug, but if it's a > "must" the package gets dropped. AFAIK there are very, very few packages that don't already follow the policy as if it were a "must". Those two are dosemu and nethack, and I haven't even checked their status in this department lately. Packages can be exempted even from "must" policies on a case-by-case basis. -- G. Branden Robinson | The greatest productive force is human Debian GNU/Linux | selfishness. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpeDA3fiQmqM.pgp
Description: PGP signature