On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:57:37AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Standards-Version < 3 : > a not FHS compliant package is at most a "normal" bug > Standards-Version >= 3: > a not FHS compliant package is at most a "serious" bug This is not correct. You can't change the severity of a bug by twiddling a field with a purely indicative use. > > We have many packages with old Standards-Versions which actually > > comply with newer standards and *are* FHS compatible, and we have > > packages with newer Standards-Versions that are NOT FHS compatible. > Please file RC bug on packages with Standards-Version >= 3 that are not > FHS compatible. No. Don't. I'll just downgrade them as soon as I see them, so you'll be just wasting your own time and mine. Policy is simply wrong in using the word "must" in regards to the "Standards-Version" field. And no, this isn't an opportunity for discussion. Everything there is to be said on this matter has been said, repeatedly. Check the -policy archives if you really must. Standards-Versions aren't release critical. You can put it as "Standards-Version: 526.7.8.9.13-Foo.6" if you want. And no matter what Standards-Version you have, you still have to follow the FHS, you have to use /usr/share/doc, and if you specify build-dependencies they have to be correct. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpEE0yI_Rgq4.pgp
Description: PGP signature