Re: Must and should: new proposal (was: Re: Must and should again)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:56:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's reasonable. I don't agree, but enough other people seem to that
> it'll probably happen anyway. And I don't think it'll be harmful.
>
> It's only justification for not using "must" and "should" to indicate
> RCness, though; [...]
In which case the question is obviously: what should be used instead?
The only two posibilities I can think of are:
* marking them inline, with *'s or "(RC)" or similar
* having a separate list (/usr/doc/debian-policy/release-policy.txt.gz
or something?) that lists the RC issues, pointing to appropriate
sections of policy
The first would have problems like it possibly not being entirely clear
what exactly is being declared RC, and such markup could get accidently
lost or added when doing policy rewrites.
The second would have problems in that it'd probably be hard to keep in
sync with policy as sections are rewritten or moved around, or might
become inaccurate if some policy requirements are dropped or changed
(policy referring to /usr/share/doc, the RC thing referring to /usr/doc,
maybe).
Any better ideas, comments, etc?
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)
Reply to: