Bug#114920: PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistence in perl module names

[Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>]

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:35:06PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > >   Or the package's name may
>                               ^^^
> > > >   be an abbreviated version, and the longer name put in the Provides
> > > >   field.
> > > 
> > > Require is probably too strong, but I suggest this should instead read:
> > > 
> > >     or the package's name may be abbreviated. If the package does not
>                               ^^^
> > >     use the full name, it should include the full name in the Provides
>                               ^^^^^^
> > >     field.
> > 
> > I have no problem with that wording, but I fail to see how it is any
> > different from the original wording. My original wording doesn't say
> > "and the longer name OPTIONALLY put in the Provides field", it says you
> > can abbreviate the name AND put the longer name in the provides field.
> 
> Actually it does say that, although I don't think you meant it that
> way. The original wording captures the Provides bit under a 'may'
> clause; I have moved it to a 'should' clause.

My original wording uses a may clause for the conjunction consiting of
(abbreviated_name && full_name_in_provides_field). You can't get away
with just doing one. At least that's the way I use the English language.
If you really think it's unclear I have no problem with your wording.

-- 
see shy jo