Bug#91249: PROPOSED] bring X support policy into line with must/should/may usage
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
branden@deadbeast.net (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>
Thank you, the wording in the current policy seems to imply that
providing alternate frontends is an option only open to higher-priority
packages, whereas this is much clearer. Seconded.
- --
Colin Watson [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6vlGVMVrRHkkXpRQRAunLAJ9+mvnddsm/za0CIQ2s0g3dt5285gCgvN/W
nLBt+Lp68cP3LLFK+n0ozmQ=
=MCBE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: