Re: packages with really old standards version
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> [010220 13:52]:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at least
> > 3.x.x, it gets held.
> And just out of curiosity: apt has standards version 2.4.1
That is interesting. Of course, I bet apt 0.4 will be > 3.x.x when it is
finally released.
> And more serious: If you want to force the upgrade of the standards
> version you must file 579 RC bugs on these packages.
Logistics aside though, wouldn't it be kind of neat to have all the
packages shipped with woody be standards version 3.0 or higher?
(Although, maybe sarge is a better idea for this one; sarge ought to
have kernel 2.4.x, and between that and having all packages be standards
version 3.x, numbering sarge to 3.0 would make a certain amount of cool
sense. <shrug>)
--
Earthlink: The #1 provider of unsolicited bulk email to the Internet.
Reply to: