On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 04:54:04PM +0200, Didier Raboud wrote: > 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.
I am not sure I find this version anymore clear. Maybe + If <tt>DM-Upload-Allowed:</tt> is set to <tt>yes</tt>, the Debian archive will accept + subsequent uploads of the package to be signed with a key in + the Debian Maintainer keyring instead of the Debian Developper keyring. See the General Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- 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/20110607172257.GB10077@yellowpig
