Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:03:58 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#185364: debian-policy: project url's should be required
for each apt-cache package description
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Mar 2003 23:59:21 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 18 17:59:19 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from tx.symonds.net [64.246.28.87]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18vQzH-0007Nh-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:59:19 -0600
Received: from tc218-187-83-56.2-7.pl.apol.com.tw ([218.187.83.56]
helo=jidanni.org)
by tx.symonds.net with asmtp (Exim 4.04)
id 18vQzF-00086P-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:59:19 -0500
Received: from jidanni by jidanni.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18vNHC-0000OD-00; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:01:34 +0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: debian-policy: project url's should be required for each apt-cache
package description
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.10
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:01:34 +0800
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=4.0
tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,HAS_PACKAGE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.8.0
Severity: wishlist
Consider a user thumbing thru aptitude or apt-cache show.
He sees a brief description of a package that sounds good.
But he wants to know a little more before committing to a multi
megabyte download and install.
Therefore those packages without project url's in their package info
should either add them or say they really have none.
True, the user could do a google search, but...
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux debian 2.4.20-k7 #1 Tue Jan 14 00:29:06 EST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=zh_TW.Big5, LC_CTYPE=zh_TW.Big5
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 185364-done) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Mar 2003 16:11:17 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 21 10:11:17 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.green-gryphon.com)
[12.107.230.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18wP6y-0006wJ-00; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:11:16 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id
h2LG3xfW026353;
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:03:59 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) id
h2LG3w45026349;
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:03:58 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50.17 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#185364: debian-policy: project url's should be required for
each apt-cache package description
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090017 (Oort Gnus v0.17) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Fri Mar 21 10:03:57 2003
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:03:58 -0600
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Dan Jacobson's message of "Fri,
21 Mar 2003 08:51:56 +0800")
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,NOSPAM_INC,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,
SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA,
X_AUTH_WARNING
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
I don't think this is really a policy issue -- it may be a
developers reference good practices issue, so perhaps you can ask
the maintainers of that package?
manoj
--
Armadillo: To provide weapons to a Spanish pickle.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
