Hi, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Policy ยง 5.6.11, after describing the meaning of the digits in the > policy version, reads: > > | Thus only the first three components of the policy version are > | significant in the Standards-Version control field, and so either > | these three components or all four components may be specified. [5] > > Now, I've only got the impressions that packages should avoid using the > 4th digit in their Standards-Version field, as that number has no > meaning when it comes to normative stuff. I've seen on IRC/MLs all kind > of comments saying that the 4th digit should be avoided I have been including the 4th component in packages I maintain. I don't know if that's a vote for or against this proposal. I include it because it makes it unambiguous which version of policy the team referred to when preparing the package. Micro policy releases are not supposed to change the normative stuff but sometimes they clarify the text of normative sections and that context can be useful for understanding whether a later clarification was taken into account in the packaging. My feeling is that this is fine and that those comments on IRC/MLs are misguided. But I could easily be persuaded otherwise. Thanks and hope that helps, Jonathan
