>>>>> "Sean" == Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes:
Sean> On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 11:47PM +02, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> (2021-08-12): >>> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 08:41AM -06, Sam Hartman wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > So, it seems fairly obvious to me that Standards-Version is >>> important > for packages that produce both debs and udebs. > >>> I'm assuming the focus of our discussion then is on source >>> packages that > only produce udebs. > Have I got that right? >>> > >>> > By definition, most of the policy that affects binary packages >>> does not > inherently apply to udebs. As I understand it, >>> that's kind of the point > of udebs. >>> >>> Would you agree with this? You're only asking to stop seeing >>> warnings about S-V for source packages which produce only udebs? >> >> Yes, that looks good to me: source packages (also) producing debs >> would deserve a rightful nag. Sean> I believe that we failed to consider udebs when we made the Sean> change which made S-V mandatory. I propose we remove the Sean> requirement for S-V in udebs and source packages producing Sean> only udebs, until and unless someone provides a positive Sean> argument why S-V ought to be mandatory in these cases too. I thought I provided such an argument. (you trimmed that part of my message when replying). My argument was roughly that things like build systems, use of dh, debian/rules interfaces etc might well need to apply to source packages producing only udebs. I think the issues are kind of complex, and I agree with you that we didn't consider udebs properly. I do think though that you ignored the meat of my message and I think it is worth a bit more consideration than that.