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

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 there are people not managing their Standards Versions fields
>>  like they are supposed to, and are too lazy or incompetent to keep
>>  track of a simple version, I suggest we start thinking about removing
>>  DD status from people based on a track record of incompetence.
> I sugges you stop suggesting stuff like that. It doesn't help, do you
> remember the last time someone suggested to get you removed on -policy, how
> did you like it?

        I told them where the -vote list was, didn't I? It is the
 project prerogative to remove people from positions for not performing
 to standardfs, and that is as it should be. Note that I did not target
 any individual, I targeted suboptimal behaviour, and you are the first
 one to bring personalities into this.

        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.

> Joss has taken the right decision and would have done so even without your
> useless remark.

        Lying to lintian and the rest of the world is the right
 behaviour? Since when?

        The field is supposed to contain the version of the policy that
 was last checked for conformance by the developer. Checking policy
 changes to ensure your package conforms is oneof hte duties of a debian
 developer. If you want to not perform your duty, and wait until other
 people actually dosciver policy non-compliance and file bugs, at least
 one could be honest, not change the standards version, and add a
 lintian override so that there are no annoying warnings, and yet
 someone else looking at the package has a clearer idea when
 themaintainer performed the policy check, _that_ would be the right
 thing to dso.

> 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.

        Precisely. You should not just lie and bump it.

        Whether you are negligent in performing your duties as a
 developer, and being proactive in fixing bugs and keeping your packages
 in conformance with policy is another matter.

i dont even know if it makes sense at all :) This is an experimental
patch for an experimental kernel :)) -- Ingo Molnar on linux-kernel
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: