Re: Finishing the FHS transition
On 06-May-01, 14:27 (CDT), Adrian Bunk <email@example.com> wrote:
> Policy says:
> <-- snip -->
> In the source package's `Standards-Version' control field, you must
> specify the most recent version number of this policy document with
> which your package complies. The current version number is 126.96.36.199.
> This information may be used to file bug reports automatically if your
> package becomes too much out of date.
> <-- snip -->
Uhh, when did that become a "must"? In 3.5.2 the first paragraph
You should specify the most recent version of the packaging
standards with which your package complies in the source package's
Even in 3.5.4, towards the end of that section it says
You should regularly, and especially if your package has become out
of date, check for the newest Policy Manual available and update
your package, if necessary. When your package complies with the new
standards you should update the Standards-Version source package
field and release it.
It says nothing about uploading just to notify that you "are still
Hmmm, I don't remember a proposal to change this; I suspect the "must"
slipped in during the recent rewrites, and as Chris Waters pointed out, it
is certainly inconsistent with the intent of the field according to recent
> "you must specify the most recent version number of this policy document
> with which your package complies": You must upgrade this field when your
> package complies with a more recent policy - and when your package does
> already comply with a more recent policy nothing more than an upload with
> an updated Standards-Version field is needed.
Nonsense. I'm not going to upload new versions of packages simply to
change that field. Lot's of policy updates have zero effect on most
packages, and I doubt many of our users want to spend the time and
money downloading and installing a new version of a package to confirm
that. I would strongly object if (for example) Branden suddenly started
uploading new versions of the X packages every time a new version of
policy was released.
I'll wait a few days for one of the policy editors to say "Oops, that
was an accident"; if that's not the case, I need to propose an ammendent
that clarifies reality, so that Adrian doesn't get mislead again :-).
Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)