Le mardi, 22 septembre 2015, 13.47:31 Charles Plessy a écrit : > Le Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:27:53AM -0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > > Hi. I've been debating how to respond to the shall vs must thing. > > The short answer is that there are reasons why you might prefer > > shall, but I find that I'd rather say "must is good enough," than > > try and come up with an articulate presentation of the energy which > > would conclude by saying that if must still seemed like the right > > choice go with it. > > > > So, I'm fine with s/shall/must. > > Thanks Sam, > > the word "shall" appears only once in the Policy (quoted below), so I > think that avoiding it is consistent with the Policy's style. > > If the package is <strong>architecture: any</strong>, then > the shared library compilation and linking flags must have > <tt>-fPIC</tt>, or the package shall not build on some of > the supported architectures > > I still have commit priviledges on the Policy's Git repository on > Alioth, so if the Policy Editors are busy, I can implement the TC's > decision.
For what I'm concerned, at least for the "cherry-picking" part of the TC decision, please go ahead. Cheers, OdyX
