Re: Question about watch-file
Patrick Schoenfeld <schoenfeld@in-medias-res.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:30:57AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > An empty watch file (with comments) is better than [a watch file
> > with a URL to an unversioned file].
>
> Whats your rationale for proposing to include useless empty files
> within of a package?
They're not useless if they document the situation in comments.
> Given that
> a) a watch file is still optional
> b) the lintian message is only of type 'info'
Right. And the lintian message suggests exactly what I'm suggesting: a
watch file that documents exactly why 'uscan' can't yet do its work
for this particular package.
> c) We don't hide problems according to our social contract
Indeed. Documenting them explicitly is what I'm suggesting, instead of
an override to silence a message.
> I'd say the best thing is to not include a watch file, to not add a
> lintian override (its useless anyway) and fix the problem with
> upstream first and _then_ fix it in the package.
Creating the watch file with comments on the *current* situation is no
barrier to also working with upstream to fix that situation. In
addition, it documents the current situation exactly where people can
be expected to look, for as long as that situation persists.
--
\ “No wonder I'm all confused; one of my parents was a woman, the |
`\ other was a man.” —Ashleigh Brilliant |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: