On Sun, May 10, 1998 at 01:09:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hamish Moffatt) wrote on 10.05.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Packages only have to specify the first three digits of the > > > > > version number in the `Standards-Version' field of their source > > > > > packages.
> > > If it meant "exactly three", I'd have expected to see "Packages have to > > > specify only the first three digits of the version number in the > > > `Standards-Version' field of their source packages." > > > > They both say the same thing to me -- >= 3. > > If = 3 was intended, "must" or "should" should be used, as in > > What's the difference between "must" and "have to"? I don't see it. "Packages to have specify only ..." sounds like "Packages only have to specify", which in turn means packages must specify AT LEAST 3, but 4 is allowed. I think the word `exactly' is exactly the thing that is required here! > Now, "should" *is* different in that it allows exceptions. True, it can, although I thought I heard that when used in formal documentation, should == must. I should be wrong :-) 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]
