1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.POLICY

  • Bug#877697: ebian-policy: discourage using all 4 digits numbers in Stan

    From Jonathan Nieder@21:1/5 to Mattia Rizzolo on Wed Oct 4 18:50:02 2017
    XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

    Hi,

    Mattia Rizzolo wrote:

    Policy § 5.6.11, after describing the meaning of the digits in the
    policy version, reads:

    | Thus only the first three components of the policy version are
    | significant in the Standards-Version control field, and so either
    | these three components or all four components may be specified. [5]

    Now, I've only got the impressions that packages should avoid using the
    4th digit in their Standards-Version field, as that number has no
    meaning when it comes to normative stuff. I've seen on IRC/MLs all kind
    of comments saying that the 4th digit should be avoided

    I have been including the 4th component in packages I maintain. I
    don't know if that's a vote for or against this proposal.

    I include it because it makes it unambiguous which version of policy
    the team referred to when preparing the package. Micro policy
    releases are not supposed to change the normative stuff but sometimes
    they clarify the text of normative sections and that context can be
    useful for understanding whether a later clarification was taken into
    account in the packaging.

    My feeling is that this is fine and that those comments on IRC/MLs are misguided. But I could easily be persuaded otherwise.

    Thanks and hope that helps,
    Jonathan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sean Whitton@21:1/5 to Jonathan Nieder on Wed Oct 4 19:30:02 2017
    XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

    Hello,

    On Wed, Oct 04 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

    I include it because it makes it unambiguous which version of policy
    the team referred to when preparing the package. Micro policy
    releases are not supposed to change the normative stuff but sometimes
    they clarify the text of normative sections and that context can be
    useful for understanding whether a later clarification was taken into
    account in the packaging.

    My feeling is that this is fine and that those comments on IRC/MLs are misguided. But I could easily be persuaded otherwise.

    This seems like a reasonable use of all four digits.

    I would like to reassign this to Lintian, which could say "did you
    really mean to use all four?"

    --
    Sean Whitton

    --=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAlnVGOgACgkQaVt65L8G YkCLEQ/+N+cHx7Kn+sr3scLT9+CQiFyjJpjtv4n5CxtUCu7RrGiEfgCppg9063Ip AWNz4SaiOy88dsLWw5J119CRPBbQl6BUCq96Mb0GhwFbL/dZwds6ilKt8RO+W72k KX67IY2ZoD0du23dDWz6cuqlVJ10ERfMeDWMJWQvCTVAqJ8vsrhLV4INYZ4ybeKi ooTob3aScLRlQPgbLPxU9nVxj3aaqMGXD8Vodhg2ZWMA1fnxlRYb4QlTRXpnp4zt qYjIKmfuaw6RFQg10m2KoK1VT7VsidK4dQ5MWQcwVPecxwWtuS3NHRLCUjx+ve0w 3F+UEhySH/yCoaCh7t6hNS8TtjTtm1CvKuY222NYyTRprz24RpSMsez8PBaP3bDY brdoENtbPNwbbAUCa+J4jjgEAHqSaQR50xK11hwUh3yQ4UyduMN+5jFJCcM/iDxK NH4kSr00x8YWfVoHRO+UXzvDghnpKCf5KPbLa0s1cJA5Ui0Dr0UspSZYtoPyuZgW R6rfi+0NSINuvIGykhbQaXSoh6tOmlZ87+Ntl1MWW5ysiELSA4ecPJAEb6WezLGu yhi+hM36Y/9h1sFTpm/04gPLUowr/4p84uH4eGoQF+yO286AgARWLINypQIByRqD oArgoZgcR+j0eXCXd2KppZOTS+VqsWxW/H6ujTxSdtyKaoVIafA=zRJg
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)