Bug#901160: Updating the description of the Standards-Version field
Hello Ian,
On Sat, Jun 09 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I don't see a problem with this referral. The reason the upgrading
> checklist isn't normative is to avoid having to review the summaries
> contained in it in detail. As a *list of changes* it surely must be
> normative. But I don't mind your new text.
Well, not every change to Policy is added to the upgrading checklist
(for example, this one won't be).
ISTM that the status of the upgrading checklist is easier for package
maintainers to understand if it continues to have no normative status at
all. It's a pure convenience.
>> Also, IMO this should be 'must' rather than 'should' -- since it is pure
>> metadata, bumping the s-v without reviewing the changes to Policy can
>> only be counterproductive.
>
> I don't think that's true. For example, one might have redone the
> packaging from scratch, in which case there is no need to review the
> *changes* to policy.
Good point. I've added a qualifier.
Here is the patch for seconding:
> From 3bad0c91264c707ee163af93e45d3b53e5e4f880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 08:11:52 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] update description of usage of Standards-Version field
>
> ---
> policy/ch-controlfields.rst | 3 ++-
> policy/ch-source.rst | 30 +++++++++++++++++-------------
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> index 0771346..ecac5de 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -521,7 +521,8 @@ Their syntax and semantics are described in
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The most recent version of the standards (the policy manual and
> -associated texts) with which the package complies.
> +associated texts) with which the package complies. See
> +:ref:`s-standardsversion`.
>
> The version number has four components: major and minor version number
> and major and minor patch level. When the standards change in a way that
> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> index e3b1981..7484772 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -10,18 +10,27 @@ Source packages should specify the most recent version number of this
> policy document with which your package complied when it was last
> updated.
>
> -This information may be used to file bug reports automatically if your
> -package becomes too much out of date.
> -
> The version is specified in the ``Standards-Version`` control field. The
> format of the ``Standards-Version`` field is described in
> :ref:`s-f-Standards-Version`.
>
> -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. [#]_
> +This information may be used to file bug reports automatically if your
> +package becomes too much out of date.
> +
> +For a package to have an old Standards-Version value is not *itself* a
> +bug, however. It just means that no-one has yet reviewed the package
> +with changes to the standards in mind.
> +
> +When updating existing packaging, the Standards-Version must not be
> +updated except after reviewing the changes between the old and the new
> +versions of the standards and updating your package if necessary (the
> +:doc:`upgrading-checklist` can help with this task).
> +
> +A very old Standards-Version can mean that infelicities in the package
> +are likely. It is recommended that each package be reviewed at least
> +once per Debian release, so a Standards-Version older than the
> +previous Debian release is indicative of work (if only review work)
> +that needs doing.
>
> .. _s-pkg-relations:
>
> @@ -695,11 +704,6 @@ according to this convention, the C source code of an executable
> ``checksum/util`` is to be located at
> ``debian/missing-sources/checksum/util.c``.
>
> -
> -.. [#]
> - See the file ``upgrading-checklist`` for information about policy
> - which has changed between different versions of this document.
> -
> .. [#]
> Rationale:
>
> --
> 2.14.2
--
Sean Whitton
Reply to: