Hi Private, On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 3:45 AM Pirate Praveen <[email protected]> wrote: > > As there is no standard field in debian/watch or there is no > debian/watch/standard file. It would be obvious to someone who is > experienced, but making it clearly spelt is helpful to newbies.
I sympathize with your desire for clarity and have put a lot of time toward that goal. In the case of the watch file, I know what you mean but I do not arrive at the same conclusion. Perhaps you can agree that clarity is improved when different things have different names. (My favorite example for that is driving in Atlanta, where a significant number of streets are named Peachtree.) In Lintian, we try to reserve the term"version" for package versions. They are probably the single most confusing, most controversial and least thought-out area in Debian. Part of it is, of course, that upstreams are free to choose whichever system or format they like. As a mental exercise, you can try to sort version numbers (for the same package). We attempt to do that, however poorly, on lintian.d.o. I do not see an advantage to mixing the concept of standard compliance anywhere, such as for watch files, with package versions. As a mental bridge, which I need sometimes as well, I find it helpful to think of Debian's very own Standards-Version in d/control. > Check: fields/mail-address could be, > > Check: Uploaders/Maintainer I am not sure I understand your proposal here. As Chris wrote, the check field was traditionally not published because our tags reside in a global namespace. There was a proposal for private name spaces [1] which was implemented, but the concept was unpopular [2]. I really thought it could help shorten tag names. It is currently only used for two classification tags in the check continuous-integration/salsa. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=943525 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/11/msg00288.html Kind regards Felix Lechner
