Re: What’s the use for Standards-Version?
On Thu, Aug 13 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> If you think one should address content, and specific actions,
>> not personalities, your message does tend to inject personalities into
>> the discussion. Please cease doing so.
>
> Well, why are mentioning the topic of removing DD status to incompetent
> developer if it's not related to the current thread?
I think it is related to the thread -- in that if there are
developers who are not updating their packages wrt policy, and then
lying about it to appease Debian, it is not S-V: that is broken, it is
the fact that these individuals, whoever they are, by the dint of their
actions, not of their personalities, should have the DD status removed.
Other actions related to non-performance (like, not having any
activuty related to their packages for a year or two) also should
result in their status being removed.
This is not an attack on any individual; this is a statement
regarding _anyone_ not performing their duties, or misrepresenting the
fact that they have not actually done (check policy upgrades with
respect to compliance of the package) and yet blindly bump the
> Don't you believe that blindly updating the Standards-Version is a
> proof of incompetence (or some strong sign of it)?
Yes, it is. Also, not checking your package conforms to the
latest policy is also another indication of either incompetence or
laziness, and indeed, dereliction of duty.
>> > It's a bookmark to be used together with the upgrading checklist, and
>> > if you don't use it to check whether something has to be updated in
>> > the package, you should not update it.
> And it's what Joss said in his answer to the same mail that I was
> answering (and which was already available when I responded).
Hmm. As my memory serves me, the statement was:
Message-Id: <[🔎] 1250148888.23574.10.camel@shizuru>
>>>> Fine. It's been several years now that managing the standards
>>>> version has been an unconditional bump for me.
Unconditional bump, I parsed, as merely bumping the version,
without regards to actual status (since otherwise it would have been
conditional on checking and making any relevant changes as required)
>>>> And following this discussion, I've decided to stop managing them
>>>> at all and ignore relevant lintian warnings.
(snip bits about invitations to start processes)
So, this current discussion is when the decision has been taken
to ignore the lintian wanring, and to leave the S-V alone. That, to me,
implies that until, say, last week, the S-V had been just
unconditionally bumped.
The actions (not the developer themself, since I amnot letting
my personal opinion get injected into this discussion as far as I can
avoid it) are why I consider to be not suitable for a developer
accredited in the Debian project.
manoj
--
A bachelor is an unaltared male.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: