On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 06:49 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Raphael Hertzog (hertzog@debian.org) [060620 01:35]: > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > - uses "XS-Python-Standards-Version: 0.4" as reference field to run in new > > > policy mode. The presence of XS-Python-Version will also trigger the new > > > policy mode (this is for short-term compatibility, it may be removed in > > > the not too-distant future). > > > > Joe proposed on IRC to use "debian/pycompat" instead of a new field. It > > sounds very much debhelper-ish and I like it. > > It depends what the field means. > > For me, the Standards-Version was mainly a marker to say "this package > is compatible to Version x.y of the policy" - which allows not only > debhelper to work on it, but also to search for old packages etc. This > is incompatbile with debian/pycompat (at least, if you want to do it > efficient). debhelper does not use Standards-Version for this purpose. It doesn't use it at all, as far as I know. debhelper uses a DH_COMPAT environment variable or debian/compat file. Not complying with the latest policy is a bug, regardless of what Standards-Version is declared. Not using the latest debhelper features is not a bug, as long as the package follows policy. Two fields for different purposes. X-Python-Standards-Version tried to overload one with the other. That's a recipe for disaster. Besides, eventually Python policy will be merged into real policy (hah hah, right) and then the field will exist only to give tool implementation details. Using X-PSV also misses the criticism of X[BS]-Python-Version, which is that dpkg's database should not be used for packaging tools in such a fashion (I'm not saying I agree with it -- but that's what Joss has said about X-PSV, and the fact that the new Python policy required a patch to dpkg I think gives it some legitimacy). To get rid of one while adding the other is dumb. Pierre Habouzit, the developer who suggested X-PSV, has told me in private that he agrees with my criticism, and is surprised that Raphael went ahead with using it before any discussion on the matter (besides a brief criticism from me, on the list, about why his intended purpose would be pointless). -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part