Re: Network access during build

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Emmanuel Bourg writes ("Re: Network access during build"):
> That makes sense, but in this case what is the usefulness of the
> Standards-Version field? And more precisely, why is it considered an
> error [1] to omit it?

The field is useful because it shows the most recent version of the
policy that the package has been checked against.  It is useful to
occasionally update packages to the latest standards, and the
Standards-Version field can be used to spot how long it has been for
this particular package.  Policy comes with handy summaries of the
changes, for use when checking/updating a package.

As a matter of courtesy to those who will come after you, in the
maintenance of a package, I think it should always be included.  It's
your declaration of what work you have (and have not!) done.

I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should be an "error"
for lintian, but: it is really very easy to put one in when you make a
packaqe for the first time, and inventing one later might be tiresome.

> Speaking for the Java team, on each new version of the policy we have to
> update this field in ~500 packages actively maintained, and most of the
> time no other change is necessary. If the field could be deprecated it
> would save some time.

You could do your checks, and update the field, much more rarely, if
you wanted.  There is nothing inherently wrong with having a
Standards-Version which refers to a previous version of policy.

(A very old Standards-Version is a rather different matter: it
suggests that the package may be rotting.)

Is that suggestion any use ?

Regards,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.