On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote: > Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"): > > Then we have a "double standard" here. For some cases we (as in "the > > project") consider "should" as Stuart and I described it before, but > > we do *also* consider it a "may" for some cases, as Ian has just > > pointed it out. > > Can you come up with any examples where "should" is used in a way that > _does not_ permit a maintainer to disregard it if it appears to be a > more work than they care to put in ?
Sure: that's seems to be the general understanding of the word: someone already gave the debian-mentors example, Stuart had the same understanding, I had the same understanding. And this seems to be one of the root causes of all this mess. Do we have a general misunderstanding of the real meaning of the word? Excellent, let's make it clear with this discussion! [0] Now allow me to use "should" as you understand it, and let me express, for the sake of adding another possibility, another "solution": maintainers "should" provide either the "trad" or "desktop" menu, and once they pick one of them the other becomes a "may". There some things to note here: - I have never thought of this solution before because , as it stands out, we seems to be having different interpretations of the same word. - It will also fall under what Russ expressed in [1] - Yes, this means not everybody will get their preferred menu system in all the packages. [0] I also can understand if it's "clear" for you, but I'm pretty sure that's not the common case. [1] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741573#215> -- Antiguo proverbio de El Machi: "Dado el apropiado grado de profundidad, la ineptitud es indistinguible del sabotaje" Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.