Raphael Geissert wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> writes: >> >>> Because there were maintainers who had set a standards version which was >>> higher than the $current one (e.g. 3.8.0.0 in a package uploaded two >>> years ago). And now that 3.8.0 is $current, the package appears not to >>> checked for the new standards. >> >> This really doesn't seem useful to me, sorry. I'm not willing to apply >> it, although I won't veto it if someone else sees it as useful enough to >> warrant the maintenance. >> > > The thing is that such packages are completely _wrong_ and should not be > distributed as is. The more the number of packages Debian provides, the > challenge of maintaining an overall good QA level becomes harder. > > Now that I think about it, this tag won't require much maintenance on the > test suite, as it doesn't print any extra information. So if a package has > a Standards version ahead of its time the tags. file needs to be modified > only once (unless the date on the most recent changelog entry is changed, > of course). > > So if it won't require much maintenance on the test suite side, and > doesn't require any other kind of maintenance (not even keeping the hard > coded standards-date relation list) I don't see any reason not to include > it. > > Writing a separate tool to perform this kind of check sounds like a waste > of time (spent checking all the packages that are already being checked by > lintian) and resources that isn't needed. > > So please reconsider adding this check to lintian.
Any updates? > > Cheers, Cheers, -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
