Le Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:27:53AM -0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > Hi. I've been debating how to respond to the shall vs must thing. The > short answer is that there are reasons why you might prefer shall, but I > find that I'd rather say "must is good enough," than try and come up > with an articulate presentation of the energy which would conclude by > saying that if must still seemed like the right choice go with it. > > So, I'm fine with s/shall/must.
Thanks Sam, the word "shall" appears only once in the Policy (quoted below), so I think that avoiding it is consistent with the Policy's style. If the package is <strong>architecture: any</strong>, then the shared library compilation and linking flags must have <tt>-fPIC</tt>, or the package shall not build on some of the supported architectures I still have commit priviledges on the Policy's Git repository on Alioth, so if the Policy Editors are busy, I can implement the TC's decision. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
