Jonathan Nieder writes:
> My impression is that this "must" has been treated as a "should" in
> practice, and I don't think it's because of the detail of wording
> addressed by the first hunk of the patch below. The interoperability
> problems caused by violating this piece of policy are subtle,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> We may have existing special cases where we've ignored this problem for
> reasons of expediency, but I don't think that's a good reason to water
> down the requirement globally.
Thanks. How about this?
My impression is that this "must" has been treated as a "should" in
pra
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Policy §10.7.4 explains:
> If it is desirable for [...] 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:
> [...]
> ii. The owning package should also pro
Policy §10.7.4 explains:
If it is desirable for [...] 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:
[...]
ii. The owning package should also provide a program that the
other pac
4 matches
Mail list logo
