Hi,
Thanks for this.
1. While the former "should" is guarded by "requires", I think the
latter can be read as a recommendation. I therefore propose replacing
it with "must" to make the override more obvious.
2. While option B reads fine to me, option A is a little confusing to
me due to the combination of the naming requirement with the
mentioning of the conflict. Given the rename.ul name, there seems to
be no reason to cause a conflict at all and we can simply require
that. As such I think the options should be fully separated.
I think I would generally like TC resolutions to be "natural English to
be interpreted pragmatically, particularly in light of the rationale"
rather than bullet-proof legalese. Now is not the time to die on this
particular hill, though :-)
===Begin Resolution A'
The Technical Committee overrides the util-linux maintainer, and
requires that util-linux's rename should be shipped as
/usr/bin/rename.ul in a binary package built from src:util-linux. The
package containing rename.ul must not conflict with the rename package
nor divert /usr/bin/rename.
===End Resolution A'
===Begin Resolution B'
The Technical Committee overrides the util-linux maintainer, and requires
that util-linux's rename should be shipped in a binary package built from
src:util-linux. If this package Conflicts with the rename package, then it
must not contain any other binaries.
===End Resolution B'
I hereby modify my options A and B to replace them with the contents of
A' and B' thus.
[I'll do the necessary C&P when calling for a vote on the ballot]
Thanks,
Matthew
