Re: Wording question for multiarch exception
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:22:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The text of the multiarch exception as committed says that:
>> "Packages may not install files into any triplet path other than the
>> one matching the architecture of that package"
>> Was that "may not" (and another subsequent one) supposed to be "must not"?
> "may not" in the sense "are not permitted to", so if "must not" is the
> preferred wording: yes.
Okay, I'll update that for the next release. (Policy defines "may" as
meaning that something is entirely optional, so it makes "may not" a bit
I would love to switch to RFC 2119 terms eventually. They're not
inherently better, but there's a huge body of work in which these sorts of
nuances have all already been worked out.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>