Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suggest this is clear enough. As the author has left Debian > (you were aware of that, were you not?), that would be hard to do, > and, in any case is not required. What reason do you have for > outlawing the specification of the 5rth digit in standards version? > Do you just enjoy controversy for controvercies sake?
*blink* (1) There is nothing preventing the author from dashing off a short note clarifying the issue. It's not like he's dead, or contractually prohibited from participating, etc. (2) I have no personal objection to packages which only specify three digits of policy version. For the purpose of tests we can treat the missing digits as wild cards. (3) While the changelog entry implies that the fourth digit could be ignored (it says that it's irrelevant), it explicitly states that packages are *allowed* to specify only three digits, which also implies that packages may meaningfully specify the fourth digit. For this reason, the changelog entry is ambiguous. (4) I don't see any value to arguing about Christian Schwarz's words as if they're some scripture handed down from an unreachable god. If the idea has merit he can explain his point of view, or we can re-engineer based on the underlying issues. Is that clear enough? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
