Bug#886258: Clarify whether or not the Standards-Version field must be present, or lower Lintian tag severity
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:24:12PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:08:55PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Given that it seems we have a strong project consensus on always > > including the field, seeking seconds to make Policy reflect that: > > > > > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > > index 77ff81f..44080c9 100644 > > > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ package) are: > > > > > > - :ref:`Build-Depends et al ` > > > > > > -- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (recommended) > > > +- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (mandatory) > > > > > > - :ref:`Homepage ` > > > > > > @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ is described above, in :ref:`s-controlsyntax`. > > > > > > - :ref:`Dgit ` > > > > > > -- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (recommended) > > > +- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (mandatory) > > > > > > - :ref:`Build-Depends et al ` > > seconded. Seconded. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#886258: Clarify whether or not the Standards-Version field must be present, or lower Lintian tag severity
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:08:55PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > Given that it seems we have a strong project consensus on always > including the field, seeking seconds to make Policy reflect that: > > > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > index 77ff81f..44080c9 100644 > > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ package) are: > > > > - :ref:`Build-Depends et al ` > > > > -- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (recommended) > > +- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (mandatory) > > > > - :ref:`Homepage ` > > > > @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ is described above, in :ref:`s-controlsyntax`. > > > > - :ref:`Dgit ` > > > > -- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (recommended) > > +- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (mandatory) > > > > - :ref:`Build-Depends et al ` seconded. -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#886258: Clarify whether or not the Standards-Version field must be present, or lower Lintian tag severity
control: reassign -1 debian-policy control: tag -1 -moreinfo +patch control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org control: usertags = normative Hello, On Wed 18 Jul 2018 at 03:22AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > To clarify, /missing/ Standards-Version? If so it is, err, not > prevalent at all: > > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/no-standards-version-field.html Thanks Jonathan and Chris for establishing that this Policy change would not make any packages buggy. Given that it seems we have a strong project consensus on always including the field, seeking seconds to make Policy reflect that: > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > index 77ff81f..44080c9 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ package) are: > > - :ref:`Build-Depends et al ` > > -- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (recommended) > +- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (mandatory) > > - :ref:`Homepage ` > > @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ is described above, in :ref:`s-controlsyntax`. > > - :ref:`Dgit ` > > -- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (recommended) > +- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (mandatory) > > - :ref:`Build-Depends et al ` -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#886258: Clarify whether or not the Standards-Version field must be present, or lower Lintian tag severity
Hi Jonathan, > What does the lintian lab say about prevalence in the archive? To clarify, /missing/ Standards-Version? If so it is, err, not prevalent at all: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/no-standards-version-field.html :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#886258: Clarify whether or not the Standards-Version field must be present, or lower Lintian tag severity
Hi, Chris Lamb wrote: > Sean Whitton wrote: >> Either Policy should mandate this field, or it should not be a Lintian >> error when it is not present. > > Any update on this? It is somewhat tempting to re-assign this to Policy > alone until there is a resolution there. What say you? :) https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#source-package-control-files-debian-control says 'Standards-Version (recommended)', meaning that specifying it is recommended but not mandatory. I think it's okay for lintian to error out without it just because it's essential information that *lintian* needs in order to do its job. What does the lintian lab say about prevalence in the archive? Is it widely enough used that we could make it mandatory, make it an ftpmaster autoreject, etc? Thanks and hope that helps, Jonathan
Bug#886258: Clarify whether or not the Standards-Version field must be present, or lower Lintian tag severity
tags 886258 + moreinfo thanks Dear Sean, > Either Policy should mandate this field, or it should not be a Lintian > error when it is not present. Any update on this? It is somewhat tempting to re-assign this to Policy alone until there is a resolution there. What say you? :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#886258: Clarify whether or not the Standards-Version field must be present, or lower Lintian tag severity
Package: debian-policy, lintian Severity: normal Hello, On Tue, Jan 02 2018, Markus Koschany wrote: > If the Standards-Version field is optional, great! Then let's get rid of > it right now. The Lintian error is presumably as mistake, isn't it? Either Policy should mandate this field, or it should not be a Lintian error when it is not present. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
