Hi,
>>"Martin" == Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> The changelog says: If only the patch-level digit is
Santiago> incremented, no changes in policy have been made, except bug
Santiago> fixes and clarifications. Packages only have to specify the
Santiago> first three digits of the version number in the
Santiago> `Standards-Version' field of their source packages.
>> I interpret that to mean that *at least* 3 digits of the version
>> number have to be specified, and that is good. However, specifying
>> all four digits is also legal, and does provide additional
>> information to the beholder.
Martin> No, I disagree. Your interpretation of the words in the
Martin> changelog is very loose indeed. If 'at least 3' was intended,
Martin> it would undoubtedly have been specified. In addition this
Martin> interpretation makes no sense after reading the first sentence
Martin> (if only the patch-level digit is incremented, no changes in
Martin> policy have been made, ie 2.4.0.0 == 2.4.0.1 == 2.4.0.10 with
Martin> regard to the policy.)
Why does it not make any sense? I put in (in my package)
2.4.0.1, why is this a bug? I could well have put in 2.4.0.9, so
what? You are going to file a bug against my packages for this? They
shall get closed.
Packages only have to specify the first three digits of the
version number in the `Standards-Version' field of their source
packages.
That says nothing about what happens if they specify
more. They *UST* specify at least 3. They only have to specify 3 !=
they can not specify 4.
In any case, policy is not meant to be followed anyway. And
this is not even policy.
manoj
--
"To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." Woody
Allen
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
