Re: #Bug21969: debian-policy: needs clarification about Standards-Version
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
Santiago> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 4 May 1998, Manoj
Santiago> Srivastava wrote:
>> Even if the intention was what you say (and I think it was not I
>> think the intention was what was actually written), it would be
>> wrong, since every single package in the distribution would have to
>> be changed, for no benefit whatsoever.
Santiago> The intention of Christian, I think, was precisely not to
Santiago> have to change the Standards-Version field so often, by
Santiago> specifying only the first three digits of it.
What are you basing this assertion on? He did not write this,
he wrote something else, which makes sense when you consider the
packages that exist today. I update the standards version when I make
changes to the package to conform to one, or when a new version (not
patch release comes on). I see no justification for your statement
"The Standards-Version field of each newly uploaded package should
always be changed, in theory, to match the current debian-policy
package"
First you make a ridiculous (pardon me, but it is that)
statement like that, and then you want to change policy because the
statement you made is sub optimal.
Secondly, Christian did not make it policy in the first
place. This is the changelog. Secondly, even the darned changelog
does not say what you want it to say. Making statements like "I know
what is says, but I know better, the author *must* have meant it to
say what I want it to say" is ridiculous.
Santiago> I think this makes sense, since there would not be so many
Santiago> different Standards-Version fields around for each new
Santiago> debian-policy minor release.
The solution: you do not have to change it for a minor
release, so don't change it. And anyway, what does it matter if Joe
maintainer dfoes change it? huh? I must agree with James Troup
here. you seem to be on the vendetta path here.
Santiago> Also, automatic building packages like debmake or debhelper
Santiago> would not have to be updated so often to match current
Santiago> policy.
They do not need to be updated, if we agree to the statement
in the changelog. But that does not mean that pitting in all 4 digits
should be outlawed either. Everyone knows the significance (or lack
thereof of the 4rth digit). Why should we change that?
>> look at the hello package, and see how many letters the standards
>> version specifies.
Santiago> The hello package has not been updated for ages, and
Santiago> therefore it is a bad example to know how this policy should
Santiago> be applied, IMO.
Then look at the other 1881 package in hamm, for gods sake.
This is silly. I have nothing further to say on this subject,
but I shall vehemently oppose any attempts to change policy on this
matter.
manoj
--
All things are either sacred or profane. The former to ecclesiasts
bring gain; The latter to the devil appertain. Dumbo Omohundro
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: