Policy §10.7.4 explains:
If it is desirable for [...] packages to share a configuration
file and for all of the related packages to be able to modify
that configuration file, then the following should be done:
[...]
ii. The owning package should also provide a program that the
other
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Policy §10.7.4 explains:
If it is desirable for [...] packages to share a configuration
file and for all of the related packages to be able to modify
that configuration file, then the following should be done:
[...]
ii. The owning package
Russ Allbery wrote:
We may have existing special cases where we've ignored this problem for
reasons of expediency, but I don't think that's a good reason to water
down the requirement globally.
Thanks. How about this?
My impression is that this must has been treated as a should in
practice,
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
My impression is that this must has been treated as a should in
practice, and I don't think it's because of the detail of wording
addressed by the first hunk of the patch below. The interoperability
problems caused by violating this piece of policy
4 matches
Mail list logo
