> required. I'm not 100% definite though. let's see if anyone else
> weighs in ;)
As far as I'm concerned rulz is rulz.
If it is a rule that requires new code to work, then the new code better in
some way come with the new rule. Otherwise there is no point in
distributing the (unworkable) rule, and no point in listing it in sa-update.
(And, contra-wise, if someone makes a wonderful new rule that just happens
to require code to work, the need fo code shouldn't disqualify it from
distribution.)
Now, where that particular hunk of code ends up on the user's system might
be open to question. In particular, since rules from sa-update don't end up
in the standard rules path, plugins that go with those rules probably
shouldn't end up in the devault code directory.
Loren
