Re: Replacing ‘may not’ and ‘shall not’ by ‘must not‘ ?

2011-10-26 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [111026 00:43]: I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close adaptation thereof. We're sort of reinventing the wheel here, There is also those previous art called language. I do not think it makes sense at all to switch from the wheel to

Re: Replacing ‘may not’ and ‘shall not’ by ‘must not‘ ?

2011-10-26 Thread Simon McVittie
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 at 09:32:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: being a non-native speaker, I sometimes make the error of understanding “may not” as “it is allowed to (one may) not do”, while it rather means “must not”. Like for instance in the recent

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

2011-10-26 Thread Michael Gilbert
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:  I believe it should also document the N.N standard for NMUs of non-native packages, since people don't seem inclined to change to +nmu and there's probably no reason to do so. I suppose this isn't a compelling argument, but it's just

Re: Replacing ‘may not’ and ‘shall not’ by ‘must not‘ ?

2011-10-26 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:43:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close adaptation thereof. We're sort of reinventing the wheel here, and we're not doing a very good job of it in terms of consistency and shared understanding of the

Re: Replacing ‘may not’ and ‘shall not’ by ‘must not‘ ?

2011-10-26 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:47:41AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close adaptation thereof. +1 Doing the conversion in all of Policy would be a ton of work, though. It would be an