On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 03:46:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would guess that the broader context is what is meant in most package
> descriptions (and certainly this one), but this is a call that has to be
> made by the package maintainer. This is why I recommended "should"s
> for most description guidelines, and only a couple of "must"s.
Uh, you're using musts for the wrong thing again. Packages aren't going
to get thrown out of the distro because of dodgy descriptions, even if
they're absolutely, unambiguously in the wrong.
"should" versus "must" is *completely* unrelated to whether something
is left up to the package maintainer or not.
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:
pgp0aZZUXL9RX.pgp
Description: PGP signature