[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

please upgrade your packages to current standards



Hi folks!

Yesterday, I wrote a script that scans our whole archive for .dsc files
(Debian source package description files) and outputs some statistics
regarding the `Standards-Version' fields, that is, which policy version
the packages "claim" to comply with (according to the maintainer).

Here are the results (mirror timestamp Thu Jan  1 22:00:01 UTC 1998)
splitted into the different sections: (Note, the numbers or source
packages, not binary packages.)

 Standards-Version hamm  contrib  non-free  non-us TOTAL
 0                     1                               1
 0.0                   1                               1
 0.1                   1                  1            2
 0.2.1.1              14                              14
 0.2.2.0               2                               2
 1.4.0.19              2                               2
 2.0.0.0               9        1         1       2   13
 2.0.1.0              12                  2           14
 2.0.1.5               1                               1
 2.1.0.0              56        2         4       1   63
 2.1.1.0             176        6        21       2  205
 2.1.1.2              19                  5           24
 2.1.1.6               1                               1
 2.1.2.2             302       21        48       4  375
 2.1.22                1                               1
 2.1.3.0              25        2         2           29
 2.1.3.1               2        1                      3
 2.1.3.2              18                  8           26
 2.1.3.3               5                  2            7
 2.2.0.0              41        1        16       1   59
 2.2.0.1               1                               1
 2.2.2.0               1                               1
 2.3.0.0             162        8        33       1  204
 2.3.0.1             150       10        16       2  178
 TOTAL              1003       52       159      13 1227

With this, we have 44 packages that specify an invalid (i.e.,
non-existant) policy version and 728 packages (out of 1227, that's nearly
60% !) claim to apply to a policy older than one year!!!

Unless someone objects, I'll report bugs against the 44 packages.

Since I don't think (at least I hope :-) that our packages are that bad
and _do_ actually comply with current policy in most cases, it looks like
the maintainers simply don't upgrade this field very often. 

Therefore, I suggest that you check your packages against current policy
and upgrade the field with the next upload you make. (The last digit of
the policy version number represents the "patch-level", so I don't really
care if you specify 2.3.0.0 or 2.3.0.1, but it does matter if you set this
to 0.0 :-)

To simplify the policy-upgrade process, I created a checklist which is
attached below. You can use this list to get a quick overview about the
major changes between the policy versions. If you need more details (or if
you are upgrading from a very old version), please check out the Policy
Manual.

(The checklist will show up on the policy home page shortly.)


Thanks,

Chris

---------cut-here---------------

Policy checklist for upgrading your packages

About the checklist

The checklist below has been created to simplify the upgrading process of
old packages. Note, that this list is not `official.' If you have doubts
about a certain topic, if you need more details, or if you think some other
package does not comply with policy, please refer to the Policy Manual.

Here is how the check list works: Check out which policy version your
packages complies with currently. Than move upwards until the top and check
which of the items on the list might concern your package. If the item does
not give you enough details, please check out the Policy Manual.

The checklist

2.3.0.1, 2.3.0.0                Sep 97

        * new section `4.2 Daemons' including rules for
          /etc/services, /etc/protocols, /etc/rpc, and /etc/inetd.conf

        * updated section about `Configuration files':
          packages may not touch other packages' configuration files

        * MUAs and MTAs have to use liblockfile

2.2.0.0                         Jul 97

        * added section 4.1 `Architecture specification strings':
          use
               <arch>-linux
          where <arch> is one of the following:
               i386, alpha, arm, m68k, powerpc, sparc.

        * detailed rules for /usr/local

        * user ID's

        * editor/pager policy

        * cron jobs

        * device files

        * don't install shared libraries as executable

        * app-defaults files may not be conffiles

2.1.3.2, 2.1.3.1, 2.1.3.0       Mar 97

        * two programs with different functionality must not have the
          same name

        * "Webstandard 3.0"

        * "Standard for Console Messages"

        * Libraries should be compiled with `-D_REENTRANT'

        * Libraries should be stripped with "strip --strip-unneeded"

2.1.2.2, 2.1.2.1, 2.1.2.0       Nov 96

        * Some changes WRT shared libraries

2.1.1.0                         Sep 96

        * No hard links in source packages

        * Do not use dpkg-divert or update-alternatives without consultation

        * Shared libraries must be installed stripped

2.1.0.0                         Aug 96

        * Upstream changelog must be installed too

--                  Christian Schwarz
                   schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com
                  schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
                       
                PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
              
 CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
 	                                     http://www.schwarz-online.com


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: