Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 23:41:35 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: buildworld breakage during "make depend" at usr.bin/kdump Message-ID: <93731.1004650895@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:27:29 MST." <15329.48705.958888.501118@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:27:29 MST, Nate Williams wrote: > > > I guess I read "shall *permit* an application to..." as "it's not > > > non-conforming to", not as "it's required to". Standards-speak > > > is sometimes somewhat opaque =) > > > > The phrase "shall permit" means that a conforming implemention is > > required to permit. See RFC 2119. > > So, how does this differ from; > > "shall *require*" In the obvious way. An application that "shall require" command-line arguments in a certain format MUST ONLY ALLOW that format. An application that "shall permit" MUST ALLOW at least that format. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?93731.1004650895>