On Thu, Aug 13 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:44:26PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>>
>> IIRC, there is a plan for splitting Descriptions out of the Packages files
>
> For the curious, there is some extra information here:
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-l10n-devel/2009-August/000507.html
>
> In my experience, Standards-Version is not an accurate indicator of
> Policy conformance, so unless there is a collective effort to change
> this, I would support the idea of Standards-Version becomming
> optional.
As steve said, it is not an indicator of policy conformance, and
it is not supposed to be one. So there need not be a concerted effort
to change the meaning of the field. It is a bookmark into the upgrading
checklist based on the last version the upoaders checked against.
If there are people not managing their Standards Versions fields
like they are supposed to, and are too lazy or incompetent to keep
track of a simple version, I suggest we start thinking about removing
DD status from people based on a track record of incompetence.
BTW, you did file serious bugs against the packages that were
not policy compliant, right?
manoj
--
Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood. Daniel
Hudson Burnham
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
