On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:08:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > * Some rewording to reflect the new must/should/may policy.
> - Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System > - should be be in a separate binary package from any > - executables, libraries, or documentation (except that > - specific to the fonts shipped); > + Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System must be > + be in a separate binary package from any executables, > + libraries, or documentation (except that specific to the > + fonts shipped). > + <footnote> > + This is because the X server may retrieve fonts > + from the local filesystem or over the network from > + an X font server; the Debian package system is > + empowered to deal only with the local filesystem. > + </footnote> This seems like a good idea, but why is the alternative unacceptable (must instead of should)? Likewise with most of the other changes of that nature: how will violating the guideline break things? If it doesn't break things, but is always better off the other way, that's only a reason for a should directive, not a must. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
pgpA0jDT7zN6v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
