On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 01:12:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > What *is* reasonable is to say "I don't yet have time to deal with
> > this."
> >
> > So the source dependencies are a MUST, but we don't yet file RC bugs,
> > probably not even normal bugs against missing source dependencies.
>
> We can partially achieve that by allowing a range of Standards-Versions that
> packages are allowed to have in a release. So, a maintainer whose package
> doesn't have Build-Depends can leave the Standards-Version at a lower value
> until he finds time to compile the list of build-deps.
Partially, but not totally. For example, packages which don't follow
some of the newer X rules need RC bugs against them.
Also, there are lots of packages with old Standards-Version fields.
Are we going to bar them all from being released? Maybe this is one
of the things that we should demand of developers: that their packages
all have a Standards-Version no more than, say, 18 months old. In
general, this is a part of routine package maintenance anyway (or at
least, it should be).
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
