[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?
From:       Markus Koschany <apo () debian ! org>
Date:       2018-01-02 21:51:56
Message-ID: 89a3a109-ddab-8960-a45e-ed7f0ad07aa4 () debian ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/mixed)]


Am 02.01.2018 um 21:57 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> ]] Markus Koschany 
> 
>> Am 02.01.2018 um 19:38 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> [...]
>>> I think of the Standards-Version header in a package is a bookmark: this
>>> is where I last left off in updating the packaging.  It doesn't change the
>>> standard by which the package should be judged.
>>
>> I believe that the Standards-Version header should not be part of a
>> debian/control file. I understand your reasoning why you want to keep it
>> and why it is useful for you. Though in my opinion a debian/control
>> file, or generally speaking all information in debian/, should be hard
>> requirements and either technically necessary for building a package or
>> legally required.
> 
> Why should we only include that information?  There is other
> information that is neither, but where it's clearly useful to version it
> together with the rest of the package, such as the changelog or the
> description.  Or, you know, the Standards-Version for the reasons
> described elsethread.

The changelog is something which can be naturally derived from the
changes made to a source package and excellent tools like
git-buildpackage ("gbp dch") make this kind of work rather simple. A
package description usually doesn't change. Only in rare circumstances
it has to be adjusted. A Standards-Version header changes frequently,
gets obsolete even faster and provides no valuable information to the
end-user of a package (which a package description and changelog
obviously do)

> Also, the Standards-Version header is only recommended to be included,
> it's not mandatory.  If its existence offends you so much and you have
> so few bugs to fix in your packages that the primary effort of
> maintaining your package is updating the Standards-Version header then
> just don't include it?

I'm neither offended by this field nor emotionally affected by it. I'm
just concerned about the fact that we maintain information in our source
packages which

 a ) can be modified more efficiently outside of them
 b ) are redundant for a large group of maintainers

In fact my primary effort is to improve all packages which I maintain
and touch and by raising my voice on this list I hope that future
maintainers will suffer less from obvious design flaws. I am not aware
of a good reason why keeping the Standards-Version field would help me
in achieving this goal.

If the Standards-Version field is optional, great! Then let's get rid of
it right now. The Lintian error is presumably as mistake, isn't it?

Regards,

Markus




["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]