[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Shared library placement proposal

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> 2011/2/5 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
>> 2011/2/5 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
>>> To me, "libraries [..] should be kept in [...]" implies that "the
>>> actual library, ie: the file" should be kept in...
>>>
>>> That would need to be cleared up, to explicitly allow symlinks.
>>
>> Doesn't the word "should" imply that in well-grounded cases a
>> different approach can be used?
>
> No it doesnt.
>
> I understand what Peter F was saying, reguarding traditional RFC language.
> But lets make our regs readable to "common folks".

The policies public/readership is not "common folks", whatever is that,
but computer scientists, engineers, &c, i.e literates.

> Example: If you mean "usually", then say "usually".
> To most folks, "should" == "must".

This is so profoundly wrong that I'm on the point of fainting...
-- 
Peter