Re: Bug#21969: debian-policy: needs clarification about Standards-Version
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 4 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.
It was just an opinion (that's why I said "I think"). Bear in mind that
english is probably not Christian's mother tongue, so it is possible
(as well as it is possible that not) that he could have not expressed
in english *exactly* what he meant.
[ Remember the discussion about the "they" word? ]
Considering the packages that exist today does not make many sense, IMHO,
since the quoted phrase in the changelog is more a "from now on, packages
which update its Standards-Version field do not have to specify all four
digits, only the first three are needed" than a "effective today, all
packages should be reuploaded immediately before hamm release so that all
of them have the latest debian-policy version in its Standards-Version
field", which would be absurd.
> 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"
Ok, agreed. Manual just says "This is updated manually when editing the
source package to conform to newer standards", but I don't see a reason
why a newly uploaded package should be intentionally not according to the
latest debian-policy.
> [ ... ]
> Secondly, Christian did not make it policy in the first
> place. This is the changelog.
That's exactly why I submitted this bug, #21969.
I was trying to clarify things.
> 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.
Please, I didn't say that. I just said what I think Christian meant (you
may think the contrary, of course), and also why I think it would be a
good idea (you may think it is not a good idea, of course), but I have
obviously no way to know what Christian *really* meant, since he left us.
That's exactly why I submitted this bug.
I think there is a difference between "I know" and "I think".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNU32wyqK7IlOjMLFAQHpRgP/YMTneIhk7eLI52wHbVvwweYLFcmUjS0E
q98xiWc5thTdMEpqKlLHqEIvsuo8qvN6pvVzhXhPkugL6NMRX7KJTFDGbr8VTwjA
9/kKz8Hq2G7ZRnoxW7ScR+8RckngH1i+GGyusn9swjhVvTcMz0Y0PdWIwqNNE+RT
t1IbHAnNNi4=
=zcJs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: