From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Nov  1 13:27:49 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41E437B407
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu,  1 Nov 2001 13:27:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from caddis.yogotech.com (caddis.yogotech.com [206.127.123.130])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21883;
	Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:27:31 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate@yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by caddis.yogotech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fA1LRUZ24979;
	Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:27:30 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate)
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15329.48705.958888.501118@caddis.yogotech.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:27:29 -0700
To: tlambert2@mindspring.com
Cc: 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
In-Reply-To: <3BE1BDC0.C61D0943@mindspring.com>
References: <200110312159.f9VLx1I45943@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
	<200111010549.fA15nPG47227@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
	<200111011614.fA1GE8P25519@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
	<200111011840.KAA23489@windsor.research.att.com>
	<200111011906.fA1J6gJ26843@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
	<200111011928.LAA24209@windsor.research.att.com>
	<3BE1BDC0.C61D0943@mindspring.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > 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*"



Nate

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message