Please remove the following email address: e.little...@gmail.com On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:31 PM Debian Bug Tracking System < ow...@bugs.debian.org> wrote:
> Your message dated Sun, 10 Sep 2023 16:26:20 -0700 > with message-id <87y1hdtxsz....@hope.eyrie.org> > and subject line Re: Bug#877697: debian-policy: discourage using all 4 > digits numbers in Standards-Version > has caused the Debian Bug report #877697, > regarding debian-policy: discourage using all 4 digits numbers in > Standards-Version > to be marked as done. > > This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. > If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the > Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. > > (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this > message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system > misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org > immediately.) > > > -- > 877697: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877697 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mattia Rizzolo <mat...@debian.org> > To: sub...@bugs.debian.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:30:37 +0200 > Subject: debian-policy: discourage using all 4 digits numbers in > Standards-Version > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.1.0 > > 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, and most > packages avoid it indeed, but this wording in the policy makes me feel > like it's pretty much the same. > > -- > regards, > Mattia Rizzolo > > GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. > more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : > Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` > Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> > To: Mattia Rizzolo <mat...@debian.org> > Cc: 877697-d...@bugs.debian.org > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 16:26:20 -0700 > Subject: Re: Bug#877697: debian-policy: discourage using all 4 digits > numbers in Standards-Version > Mattia Rizzolo <mat...@debian.org> writes: > > > 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, and most > > packages avoid it indeed, but this wording in the policy makes me feel > > like it's pretty much the same. > > After some discussion of this six years ago, it doesn't look like there > was any consensus to change Policy here. Most people only use three > numbers. Some people prefer to use four numbers to make it very clear > what version of Policy they looked at, and just in case informative > updates were relevant (probably a bug in Policy if that happens, but maybe > not). > > I think it's therefore fine to use either, which is what Policy says now, > so I'm going to close this bug. > > -- > Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
