Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi dear policy maintainers,
We just had a short discussion on IRC (#debian-python, 2011-04-11) about the
phrasing of the new 5.6.25 paragraph (which documents the DMUA field).
The current phrasing makes it sound that adding the DM-Upload-Allowed field
to each source package is required (where AFAIK it isn't).
I propose the following rephrasing:
- --- policy_orig.sgml 2011-04-11 16:33:25.000000000 +0200
+++ policy.sgml 2011-04-11 16:45:52.000000000 +0200
@@ -3700,11 +3700,11 @@
<heading><tt>DM-Upload-Allowed</tt></heading>
<p>
- - The most recent version of a package uploaded to unstable or
- - experimental must include the field <tt>DM-Upload-Allowed:
- - yes</tt> in the source section of its source control file for
- - the Debian archive to accept uploads signed with a key in the
- - Debian Maintainer keyring. See the General
+ The Debian archive will accept uploads signed with a key in
+ the Debian Maintainer keyring for a given package if and only
+ if the previous upload of said package had the
+ <tt>DM-Upload-Allowed: yes</tt> field included in the source
+ section of its source control file. See the General
Resolution <url id="http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003";
name="Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers"> for more
details.
Thanks for your consideration, cheers,
OdyX
=== IRC discussion abstract ===
[16:17] <jtaylor> standard 3.9.2 says one *must* set DM-Upload-Allowed yes, is
that also the stance of the python modules team?
[16:19] <OdyX> jtaylor: "must" in what sense ?
[16:20] <jwilk> "... to accept uploads signed with a key in the Debian
Maintainer keyring." - that's quite an important part.
[16:20] <jwilk> I don't get why it had to be written in the Policy, but meh...
[16:21] <tumbleweed> It seems sensible to have non-X fields in the policy
[16:22] <morph_work> sure, but it seems to be required for every package
[16:22] <jtaylor> odyx: must is the wording of the policy
[16:22] <jtaylor> no should
[16:23] <jtaylor> I always though that field was something set by the sponsor
[16:24] <OdyX> jtaylor: read the entire phrase. It could be reformulated as "a
DM whose key is in the debian-maintainers keyring can upload package if and
only if this package has previously been uploaded to experimental or unstable
with the DMUA flag set to yes."
[16:24] <tumbleweed> such a rephrasing would probably be sensible
[16:24] <jtaylor> ah
[16:24] <jtaylor> yes
[16:24] <morph_work> and clearer
[16:25] <OdyX> who fires reportbug ?
[16:25] <jtaylor> I as relative new to debian packaging did not know
that sponsored packages are signed with the sponsors key
[16:25] <jtaylor> so I misunderstood that :(
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'),
(500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.38-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_CH.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CH.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
debian-policy depends on no packages.
debian-policy recommends no packages.
Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
ii doc-base 0.10.1 utilities to manage online documen
- -- no debconf information
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iJwEAQECAAYFAk2jFgMACgkQKA1Vt+jBwDg6CgP+OnCmG8cBsi0cJpAlIDsLFJG1
kf3RgHheY9aontNhOzCM3X6k6IfqLn4mzkoP20w2XFgiSsQ9GDUQlAXYz/l81y12
uwICp8xRa1Pphc/d+Pe+iJ6oJZ2Qh7rusijHAS9siIuHGVXOMbmnbFJkRPqHYMR+
dGWRhPl9Qz8/QwRF9Kk=
=D49w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110411145404.25328.38662.reportbug@Tamino
