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

Re: try to keep a watch file into your package

Il giorno mar, 25-01-2005 alle 13:56 +0100, Wouter Verhelst ha scritto:

> I'm not convinced having a watch file is always useful.
I agree with you.
> I would hope a maintainer would follow the announcements of the software

I agree with this. Dehs/Watch is not a system for bypassing upstream
mailing list, announcement, chat.

> he packages and upload only its latest stable upstream version, as
> opposed to just "the latest version", whatever that may be; and that the
> maintainer would only upload a new upstream version if the change is
> meaningful (for instance, if a new upstream version only includes
> changes relevant for, say, the FreeBSD and Microsoft Windows ports of
> their application, it's useless to upload the latest version). If there
> are other (more detailed and reliable) ways of finding out what the
> latest upstream version is, having a watch file isn't really necessary.
As you can see on alioth pages, dehs, for packages with a valid (or
automatic generated watch file) "try" to keep the upstream
changelog/news from the new upstream version not in sync with debian
version, as you can see by clicking upstream version number (where
available)[1] or on your maintainer/package page on dehs.alioth. 
> As another point, I myself have become the upstream maintainer of the
> NBD tools since about a year now, IIRC (while I have been maintaining
> packages for NBD since July 2001 or so). I could have changed the NBD
> packages to be native ones, but I opted not to do so; however, since I
> release them myself, I'm quite aware when there is a new NBD upstream
> package. Having a watch file is unnecessary bloat, then.
In this cases watch file (if the package doesn't become native) could be
intended as an info tool for debian user community and for all other
developer that are not the maintainer or the upstream author of your
package (this is another goal of dehs i hope).

> These are just two examples where having a watch file isn't really
> necessary; I can imagine that there are a lot more. That's not to say
> that your effort isn't appreciated or that it is even completely
> useless; only that it is to be remembered that a watch file, while often
> useful, isn't always necessary and might in some cases even be a bad
> idea. Considering the above, if 76% of packages do have a watch file and
> the other 24% do not, it might be reasonable to assume that a high
> number of those that do not yet have a watch file do not actually need
> one.

The problem is that 76% of packages doesn't had a watch file and only
the 24% had one.

> Of course, as I said, this does not have to mean that /none/ of those
> packages actually do not need a watch file; in fact, I just downloaded
> the automatically generated watch file for one of my other packages
> where a watch file /is/ useful (since the upstream maintainer doesn't do
> announcements) ;-)
There is always, as above, the second Dehs goals as an info tools for
user and other developers that doesn't maintain your package and for
this reason doesn't follow the upstream mailing list/announcement
developing activity.


[1] http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/no_updated.html

Reply to: