* 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
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
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
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo