X-Posting to -policy, because this might be a bug in Policy. I'm not subscribed to -policy, please Cc me unless you keep -devel in.
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:32:19AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> what is the reason why in the following sentence in Policy: >>> >>> ,---- >>> | The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or postrm >>> | scripts require the package to be present in order to run. >>> `---- >>> >>> the word "should" is used, not "must"? I'm asking here (not on -policy) >>> because I assume there must be a technical reason for it, but I really >>> can't think of any. [...] > It should still be must so failure to do so is a serious policy > violation (violation of a 'must' or 'required' directive). Do others also think this is an error in policy? Nobody would object if I raise severity of such a bug and address it in an NMU (which I'm going to do for a different RC bug, anyway)? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
