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

Re: Wording question for multiarch exception

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> 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 (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: