Hi,
At Debconf earlier this year, I gave a talk about the benefits
of creating language for a lintian/linda check whenever we introduce a
new policy rule (when appropriate, and feasible, of course). Not only
do we get a instant Lintian check, but it would also tend to focus the
discu
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> usertag 203098 + rejected;
Bug#203098: debian-policy: using would be nice
Ignoring illegal tag/s: rejected;.
Please use only alphanumerics, at, dot, plus and dash.
User
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usertag 203098 + rejected;
tags 203098 +wontfix
thanks
Hi,
Since the current navigation provided is functional, and the
links asked for present problems to text based browsers, and since we
are going to be moving to docbook soon anyway, I am tagging this rather
o
severity 402780 wishlist
reassign 402780 debiandoc
# I am not sure that this is indeed a bug, but it is an issue raised
# about debaindoc2html conversion. In any case, this cannot be fixed
# in policy, so I am assigning it where it can be addressed -- feel free
# to close it.
thanks
--
You will
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 402780 wishlist
Bug#402780: debian-policy HTML "next" loops
Severity set to `wishlist' from `minor'
> reassign 402780 debiandoc
Bug#402780: debian-policy HTML "next" loops
Warning: Unknown package 'debiandoc'
Bug reassigned from package `debia
Hi,
There are three areas that need to be looked at before we can
release a new version of policy; and two of them are kinda important,
but we can punt on the third, is push comes to shove.
The first task is resolving all the bus marked as Packaging bugs
on
http://bugs.debian
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 19:59:20 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] Is there a specification
> somewhere for the Vcs-* fields for arch repositories? I remember a
> discussion, but I don't remember the conclusions. If someone could point
> me at the specification or even just send me the corre
Your message dated Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:44:47 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line New "upstream-bts" field in debian/control
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
Hi,
I think I am coming up on a period where I have time again to
devote to Debian, and am beginning to start to triage some policy bugs,
to chime in and help out russ, who has mostly been carrying the torch
the last few months.
Following his example, I have created usecategori
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> usertag 447231 + normative issue
Bug#447231: debian-policy: New Python policy missing
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: normative issue.
> severity 447231 wi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At first blush, this report fell afoul of my default query:
> does this need to be in policy? Does sectio 5.2 of policy claim to be
> comprehensive? Do all the non-mandatory fields belong in section 5.2?
> policy is supposedly minimal, th
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usertag 452105 + normative issue
severity 452105 wishlist
thanks
Hi,
At first blush, this report fell afoul of my default query:
does this need to be in policy? Does sectio 5.2 of policy claim to be
comprehensive? Do all the non-mandatory fields belong in secti
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> usertag 452105 + normative issue
Bug#452105: debian-policy: Homepage field in debian/control undocumented
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: normative issue.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes:
>> usertag 447389 +accepted normative
> Bug#447389: Please mention menu-2 format
> There were no usertags set.
> Usertags are now: normative accepted.
I think menu-2 is a different thing than the rest of this. menu-2 is
another syntax for th
Your message dated Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:17:16 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line The appendices are not part of policy
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 y
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> usertag 447389 +accepted normative
Bug#447389: Please mention menu-2 format
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: normative accepted.
> usertag 440995 +accepted
On pe, 2007-11-30 at 11:59 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Okay, here's yet another try at the wording for this that tries to exclude
> > Autotools and friends without making the wording too awkward.
> > Word-smithing welcome (as are
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, here's yet another try at the wording for this that tries to exclude
> Autotools and friends without making the wording too awkward.
> Word-smithing welcome (as are any other comments).
I am not objecting to this wording, but I
> We can only ask people to refer to common-licenses if the exact text of
> the license in every detail is invariant. The BSD license is something of
> a special case there because so much software is actually copyrighted by
> the University of California and hence the copyright holder stays the
19 matches
Mail list logo
