Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#901160: Updating the description of the
Standards-Version field"):
> The upgrading checklist explicitly states that it does not have
> normative status, so a 'should not' requirement should not defer to it.
I don't see a problem with this referral. The reason the upgrading
checklist isn't normative is to avoid having to review the summaries
contained in it in detail. As a *list of changes* it surely must be
normative. But I don't mind your new text.
> Also, IMO this should be 'must' rather than 'should' -- since it is pure
> metadata, bumping the s-v without reviewing the changes to Policy can
> only be counterproductive.
I don't think that's true. For example, one might have redone the
packaging from scratch, in which case there is no need to review the
*changes* to policy.
> > +As a rule of thumb,
> > +each package should be reviewed at least once per Debian release,
> > +so a Standards-Version older than the previous Debian release
> > +is indicative of work (if only review work) that needs doing.
>
> s/As a rule of thumb, each package should be/It is recommended that each
> package be/
>
> "Should" carries the weight of a bug of 'important' severity, but I
> don't think that was your intent (and I don't think it should have
> been).
Fine by me.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
