Package naming requirements should be weakened

[Jeff Johnson]

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #77 +++

Bug 77 discussed some clarifying of requirements, and it turns out that those
changes were actually applied, without any notation on the bug, which has
remained open. As such, that bug is now closed.

A lot of time has passed since the 2000-2005 period when LSB was being formed.
 The package naming requirements really didn't gain any traction, mainly
because the anticipated market for LSB-conforming apps never became a major
factor. We now think the requirements ought to be watered down a bit. This
comment was added to the old bug:

===
It's been clear that ISVs have been naming their packages whatever they wanted,
only doing QA against actual and likely package names in distributions. Until
we actually see a problem here, I would vote to downgrade our package name
requirements to recommedations.
===

So the proposal is where the specification says shall and must not and similar
terms, it be changed to should and should not - requirement -> recommendation,
essentially.

Is this a 5.0 item? If so, I'll propose a patch.