Markus Koschany <a...@debian.org> writes: > Please keep it simple. I disagree that we would need a version bump of > copyright format 1.0 which had to be documented in every > debian/copyright file again by changing the Format field. A simple > amendment would also do the trick which could be referenced by the > Policy and our copyright format 1.0 document.
Well, I gave my reason why I think we need a version bump. Could you explain why you think it's not necessary with a more specific discussion that answers that analysis? > Updating a single tool, a parser like Lintian, is far more efficient > than updating ten thousands of source packages again. They don't have to update the version unless they want to use the new feature, at which point they're being modified anyway. I would expect to have 1.0-format files in the archive for years, and that's fine. That's the reason why there's a version number. The first version bump is always the hardest, but if we're going to have a version number at all, we should bump it when we make backward-incompatible changes. The whole point to having a version number is to change it when something changes that a consumer needs to be aware of. > Please also read what Joerg Jaspert has written in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883950#80 > again. Even the ftp-masters prefer a keep it simple solution and they > support our proposal to reduce boilerplate. I don't think Joerg recognized the backwards-compatibility issue. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
