On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 03:50:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > ] ] How about the following: we define and use MUST and SHOULD in some > ] ] appropriate way, and then say: > ] ] > ] ] If a package violates a policy MUST [or the conditions for a SHOULD, > ] ] if any] then this is either a bug in policy or in the package. A > ] ] maintainer who notices this while creating such a package should > ] ] report the bug against what they feel is the appropriate package. > ] ] > ] ] Then we can use the bug resolution procedure to fix the problem. > > Did you mean to agree with that ?
Yes, I meant that agreed with your whole post, but decided to quote only the introduction. Apologies for the confusion. > My wording in my proposal above was very careful to avoid notions like > `binding', `must', and implications of power. Rather, it merely says > that packages and policy should be consistent, and that if they're not > then one of them should be fixed. This I agree with. However I believe that there is a perception at present that if policy does not seem to fit your package, you may simply ignore it. I do not think that works. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
