[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#91249: PROPOSED] bring X support policy into line with must/should/may usage



On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:

> --- policy.sgml	Sun Mar 25 01:34:33 2001
> +++ policy.sgml.x-support	Sun Mar 25 01:55:07 2001
> @@ -5946,14 +5946,15 @@
>  	<heading>Programs for the X Window System</heading>
>  
>  	<p>
> -	  <em>Programs that may be configured with support for the X Window
> +	  <em>Programs that can be configured with support for the X Window
>  	    System</em> must be configured to do so and must declare any
>  	  package dependencies necessary to satisfy their runtime
> -	  requirements when using the X Window System, unless the package
> -	  in question is of standard or higher priority, in which case
> -	  X-specific binaries may be split into a separate package, or
> -	  alternative versions of the package with X support may be
> -	  provided.
> +	  requirements when using the X Window System.  If such a package
> +	  is of higher priority than the X packages on which it depends, it
> +	  is required that either the X-specific components be split into a
> +	  separate package; an alternative version of the package, which
> +	  includes X support, be provided; or the package's priority be
> +	  lowered.
>  	</p>
>  
>  

seconded.

					yours,
					peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
    messages preferred.    | : :' :    By professionals,
                           | `. `'      for professionals
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-    http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: pgpDBnZQf8qib.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: