On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:44:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > 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.
Neither seem to have a bug filed against them about this, yet.
Personally, I'd also expect having a lintian warning about it would be
more effective in stopping it from happening than making it a "must".
> Packages can be exempted even from "must" policies on a case-by-case basis.
Then can be exempted from "should" guidelines on a case-by-case basis too.
That's not really relevant.
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:
pgpSS1_EN7wFJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature