> IIRC this has been discussed before, I personally would not add a lintian > warning for missing watch file. Top reasons for this I've heard are: "many > maintainers are also upstream" and "many maintainers closely follow upstream > mailing lists" > Surely such warning will improve the number of watch files but IMO will > generate > a lot of fuss with very little gain. > > filippo > --
Anything news :) The same problem as always. Watch file as a personal developer tools instead of an general debian tracking system about debian version against upstream version. It is true that many maintainers closely follow upstream mailing lists but the issue is about other developers that could track packages that doesn't maintain + debian users that probably doesn't follow upstream mailing lists. Through dehs[1] the Debian community could check the upstream changelog/news of the new version and know if it is already packaged in debian, so also know what upstream bugs and new features are not available in debian. Actually for 3014 watch file 735 debian packages seems not in sync with upstream version (i admit that probably not all this 3014 watch file are in a good format so probably there are false positive and missing negative cases) that is about 25% of packages with watch files. Probably there are very good motivation because this upstream version are not packaged in debian but why the community and developers that doesn't maintain a package cannot automatically know its upstream changes and new versions available? Tracking all the packages upstream changes/version for a single user/developer will needs to be subscribed to 9000+ upstream mailing list. We trust in our maintainers but i doesn't think that a central statistic system as dehs is th hell. [1] http://dehs.alioth.debian.org Cheers, Stefano -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
