Re: Proposed Autoconf 2.50 path
On 26-May-01, 03:01 (CDT), Tollef Fog Heen <tollef@add.no> wrote:
> * Ben Pfaff
>
> | > should, not must. And we have packages which is compliant with old
> | > policy - Build-Dependencies are quite new. So not specifying
> | > build-deps is not an RC bug.
> |
> | But it *is* a bug that should be fixed.
>
> No, old Standards-Version is not a bug. Not specifying Build-Deps is
> legal according to policy, and therefore not a bug.
Wrong. Policy says "should". This means that the lack of a Build-Dep
is not an *RC* bug. But it's still a bug (unless the package doesn't
require anything other than the build-essential packages, of course.)
Standards-Version is irrelevant. Claiming to support an old version of
policy doesn't make not complying with the current version acceptable.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: