Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]> writes: > 2011/2/5 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: >> To me, "libraries [..] should be kept in [...]" implies that "the >> actual library, ie: the file" should be kept in... >> >> That would need to be cleared up, to explicitly allow symlinks. > > Doesn't the word "should" imply that in well-grounded cases a > different approach can be used?
As a assiduous reader of RFCs I'm used to make the distinction between *should* and *must*, i.e., should = recommended but optional, must = mandatory. If everybody agrees that we keep this meaning then the proposal is satisfactory. Probably a meta-policy defining the usage of terms would be a good addition for clarifying the interpretation of policies. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
