Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.11
> tags 250202 patch
Bug#250202: [PROPOSAL] "debian/README.source" file for packages with
non-trivial source
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch
>
End of message, stopping proce
This is the last Policy bug I had tagged as wording. It started with a
proposal for a README.source file documenting how to do things with a
package that uses a non-trivial source format, and then expanded into
standardizing debian/rules targets for doing various things.
Having reviewed the entir
(Colin CC'ed in case he's not subscribed to the bug or to the
debian-policy package PTS)
Quoting Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> This proposal and patch looks good to me, although I'd prefer to see a few
> more seconds before I queue it up for applying to Policy 3.7.4.
I can't really make t
Hello,
wouldn't you expect gigantic member
http://www.slushfuns.com
Alba
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.11
> tags 172436 patch
Bug#172436: [AMENDMENT 12/04/2004] web browser url viewing
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me
The BROWSER environment variable proposal is another wording proposal
that's been sitting in the Policy bug queue for quite some time with
plenty of seconds and a concrete wording proposal. I'd like to resurrect
this discussion and put it permanently to rest one way or the other.
Copying Joey as
Please see this site in Subject
Hi,
On Jan 2, 2008 12:28 AM, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with wording
> and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and resolve it
> one way or the other.
I think the proposal is a good technical solution to
Please see this site in Subject
This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with wording
and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and resolve it
one way or the other.
Since this is a change to the Perl packaging policy, specifically for Perl
modules, I'm cc'ing the debian-perl list, as the most
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> === the proposed patch on sgml for this modification ===
>
> --- policy.sgml.orig Tue Jun 13 10:00:17 2000
> +++ policy.sgml.proposed Tue Jun 13 10:05:22 2000
> @@ -189,6 +189,12 @@
> provide infrastructure for them (such as our bug-trackin
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.11
> tags 65577 patch
Bug#65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part
of Debian distribution
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch
>
End of message,
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
>
> Policy currently reads:
>
> | 8.2 Run-time support programs
> |
> | If your package has some run-time support programs which use the
> | shared library you must not put them in the shared library
> | packa
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.11
> tags 367984 patch
Bug#367984: clarify handling of run-time and compile-time support programs
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
P
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've gotten no feedback on this patch. I think it's fairly obvious and
> plan to apply it unless there are some objections.
I never did get any feedback on this patch, but it reflects what's
currently implemented. I'm going ahead and applying it to my
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.11
> retitle 367984 clarify handling of run-time and compile-time support programs
Bug#367984: Policy 8.2 has unclear last sentence
Changed Bug title to `clarify handling of run-time and
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.11
> tags 431813 pending
Bug#431813: support for wrapped Uploaders should now be mandatory
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.11
> tags 455602 pending
Bug#455602: debian-policy: Examples of dpkg frontends should mention apt now
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
> tags 422552 pending
Bug#422552: Minor
The workflow that we're currently using is to work in our personal arch
repositories and then merge into the central dbnpolicy repository when
other Policy maintainers have had a chance to review. Accordingly, to see
my work in progress, look at the arch repository:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.1
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> As I report in #379140 (against dpkg), I have implemented Breaks in
> dpkg. The attached patch is the corresponding change to the manual.
>
> It would probably not be wise to
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. If this section is removed, then the definition of priorities
> should indicate that priorities required plus important make up what's
> installed as a base Debian system. I think this would be a bit unclear,
> though (you have to know the definition
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 11:49:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't have time to do the wordsmithing, but I can be your expert
> > witness. debian-installer (specifically, debootstrap) now simply
> > installs everything with Priority: required or Pri
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't have time to do the wordsmithing, but I can be your expert
> witness. debian-installer (specifically, debootstrap) now simply
> installs everything with Priority: required or Priority: important as
> the base system, and has done so for some time.
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. Here's an update; I think I've captured most of the discussion in
> the thread so far. The following patch could in principle be applied
> now, given seconds. Wordsmithing welcome, as I'm aware that this is a
> rather dense recommendation; I'm also
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 08:39:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Thanks for the report. I've applied a change to list apt and aptitude
>> as well as dselect to my arch repository.
> Since the term "apt" really refers to the apt library and would
> there
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 08:29:27PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > AFAIU, the base subsection was obsoleted with Etch (apparently, its
> > removal was discussed already in 1997), and (almost) all packages moved
> > to ordinary subsections, like other pac
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 08:39:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Policy 7.2:
> >>(The other three dependency fields, `Recommends', `Suggests' and
> >> `Enhances', are only used by the various front-ends to `dpkg' such
> >> as `dselect'.)
> >
> > Since ap
27 matches
Mail list logo
