Le Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:55:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> We should be consistent about terminology. Other than that nit, seconded.
Seconded as well.
This bug reminds me #683495 ("#!/usr/bin/perl" MUST or SHOULD?), which is also
about "must" statements encapsulated in a "should" area.
In the case of the present bug, perhaps part of the confusion comes from the
HTML formatting of the Policy, where itemization is not shown ? Compare with
the text version.
In http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s10.7.4 :
If it is desirable for two or more related 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:
One of the related packages (the "owning" package) will manage the
configuration file with maintainer scripts as described in the previous section.
The owning package should also provide a program that the other packages may
use to modify the configuration file.
The related packages must use the provided program to make any desired
modifications to the configuration file. They should either depend on the core
package to guarantee that the configuration modifier program is available or
accept gracefully that they cannot modify the configuration file if it is not.
(This is in addition to the fact that the configuration file may not even be
present in the latter scenario.)
And in /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.txt.gz :
If it is desirable for two or more related 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:
1. One of the related packages (the "owning" package) will manage
the configuration file with maintainer scripts as described in
the previous section.
2. The owning package should also provide a program that the other
packages may use to modify the configuration file.
3. The related packages must use the provided program to make any
desired modifications to the configuration file. They should
either depend on the core package to guarantee that the
configuration modifier program is available or accept gracefully
that they cannot modify the configuration file if it is not.
(This is in addition to the fact that the configuration file may
not even be present in the latter scenario.)
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
