On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Michael Bramer wrote:
> Because of this, I like to add/fix watch files to _all_ packages.
In general I like the idea of working watch files for all packages.
My personal experience showed in the past the following:
1. Upstream maintainers sometimes have a strange idea about numbering
their source file versions, which makes it hard to write watch files.
2. It is not always necessary to package each upstream version. Sometimes
it make sense to stick to a certain version and wait until users
ask explicitely (via wishlist "New version available" bug) for a
new version. This keeps you in contact with your users on the
one hand and others like to stabelize to certain versions.
3. Watch files do not work if packages are build from CVS sometimes.
4. Developers should be subscribed to the relevant mailing lists and
so they should read the relevant announcements if upstream authors
think there is something to announce and not when uscan finds a
new version.
Well, this all were reasons against watch files - I just left out the pros
because you know them. That's why I would love to take over watch files
into my packages if someone volunteers to write them, but I personally see
no relevance for me (personally) because I found for *my* packages that it
is not worth in spending time to work around my reason named unter 1. above.
> Comments?
Well, just go for it and I'll accept and will fix bug reports with watchfile
*patches* to my packages but I think I can spend my time more sanely (even if
it is not much time).
Kind regards
Andreas.
