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

Re: Two watch files-related MBFs

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 07:24:59PM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> James Vega wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:16:44PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> >> I find no official documentation on format of debian/watch files.
> > 
> > man uscan
> I mean in policy or reference or such official docs.

Why should it be duplicated there?  debian/watch is a file that exists
because of uscan, so uscan should be what documents the format.

> Now it is a generic convenience (for maintaner) file.
> These is also no dependencies on uscan version in debian/control,
> and often no scripts in debian/ refers to uscan.

Why would uscan be mentioned at all in debian/control?  It's not used
during the build process.  No scripts in debian/ need to refer to uscan.

> For this reason, it is also hard to define bugs on debian/watch files.

Why?  Either the watch file is written in the proper format so uscan can
parse it and perform the requested actions or it isn't.  Anything other
than that would fall into the territory of uscan behavior.

> Feel free to standardize it by putting some more references in
> debian policy.

Any tool that a developer may use in the process of maintaining packages
which leaves a file in debian/ now has to be documented in policy?

GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: