Bug#533287: debian-policy: please clarify 10.7.4

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:55:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> 
> We should be consistent about terminology.  Other than that nit, seconded.

Seconded as well.


This bug reminds me #683495 ("#!/usr/bin/perl" MUST or SHOULD?), which is also
about "must" statements encapsulated in a "should" area.

In the case of the present bug, perhaps part of the confusion comes from the
HTML formatting of the Policy, where itemization is not shown ?  Compare with
the text version.


In http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s10.7.4 :

If it is desirable for two or more related packages to share a configuration file and for all of the related packages to be able to modify that configuration file, then the following should be done:

One of the related packages (the "owning" package) will manage the configuration file with maintainer scripts as described in the previous section.

The owning package should also provide a program that the other packages may use to modify the configuration file.

The related packages must use the provided program to make any desired modifications to the configuration file. They should either depend on the core package to guarantee that the configuration modifier program is available or accept gracefully that they cannot modify the configuration file if it is not. (This is in addition to the fact that the configuration file may not even be present in the latter scenario.)


And in /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.txt.gz :

     If it is desirable for two or more related packages to share a
     configuration file _and_ for all of the related packages to be able to
     modify that configuration file, then the following should be done:
     1.   One of the related packages (the "owning" package) will manage
          the configuration file with maintainer scripts as described in
          the previous section.
     2.   The owning package should also provide a program that the other
          packages may use to modify the configuration file.
     3.   The related packages must use the provided program to make any
          desired modifications to the configuration file.  They should
          either depend on the core package to guarantee that the
          configuration modifier program is available or accept gracefully
          that they cannot modify the configuration file if it is not.
          (This is in addition to the fact that the configuration file may
          not even be present in the latter scenario.)


Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan