Re: Whatâ??s the use for Standards-Version?
On Aug 12, Josselin Mouette (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 aoÃ»t 2009 Ã 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a Ã©crit :
> > > AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> > > package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
> > > which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release, by
> > > forbidding the too old versions.
> > No, that is wrong. The reason we put in the Standards version is
> > to let the next developer know what to look for in the upgrading
> > checklist in policy in order to bring the package up to date with policy
> This assumes that the previous developer has correctly updated the
> package according to the stated Standards version. Which is, in the
> general case, wrong.
I've had some packages for years during which policy was changed and required
corresponding changes in my packages. In that case, the "previous developer"
was me, so I'm pretty confident that the previous developer did at least as
good a job as the current developer. :-)
Your statement is a broad indictment of your fellow DDs as incompetent
developers who cannot perform the simple task of reading a few lines of policy
changes and determine if they imply any required changes for their packages.
Oh, well, it's your life, make all the enemies you want.
> This also assumes that the upgrading checklist contains all relevant
> information, which is also wrong for real cases.
Even if it contains most of the relevant information, it is useful. If there
is something missing, that's when someone filing a bug can be a backup.
No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
BTW, I just glanced at the debian-policy bug page and see none related to the
upgrading checklist. Can you provide some bug numbers of those "real cases"
of missing information so I can check my packages? No hurry, if you've just
neglected to file them, do that first, then let me know. Thanks.
> If you want to bring a random package up-to-date with the policy, it is
> generally more useful to look at its RC bugs, and also at its other
> Said otherwise, with the current state of our practice, the workflow you
> describe is flawed. Which makes the standards version declaration
If there are current bugs, sure, you should attack those first. But you're
making a stronger argument that because the workflow is not bulletproof, that
invalidates the whole process and it should be discarded. I disagree, I find
it very useful and hope we keep it.
> .''`. Josselin Mouette
> : :' :
> `. `' â??I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
> `- future understand thingsâ?? -- JÃ¶rg Schilling