Re: should vs must
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:49:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:14:58AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > So we say "Packages MUST specify source dependencies." and in the
> > annex to policy: "Failure to specify source dependencies is currently
> > not RC."
>
> If the MUST specify source dependencies, it's RC by definition. That was
> the whole point of the MUST/SHOULD/MAY split.
>
> If you want something else: either per-package exceptions, or some way
> of documenting how policy is planned to look in the future (at least,
> when there is such a plan), I've already suggested ways of dealing with
> this: README.Debian and BLOCKED/ONHOLD. But MUST already serves a purpose
> as is, please don't mess with it.
What Sam pointed out is that we intended one thing but actually
confused it with another.
The two issues:
(1) What we demand of packages to comply with policy.
(2) What we consider RC.
And the suggestion is that we find some way of clarifying the
distinction.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Reply to: