Processed: forcibly merging 447231 462377

2008-01-25 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 > forcemerge 447231 462377 Bug#447231: debian-policy: New Python policy missing Bug#462377: python-defaults: The de facto Python policy should be blessed "official" Forcibly Merged 44

Processed: reassign 462377 to debian-policy,python-defaults

2008-01-25 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 > reassign 462377 debian-policy,python-defaults Bug#462377: python-defaults: The de facto Python policy should be blessed "official" Bug reassigned from package `python-defaults' to

Re: Bug#447231: debian-policy: New Python policy missing

2008-01-25 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
forcemerge 447231 462377 thanks Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:46:53 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> the new Python policy is in use since several months now and should be >> integrated. > > Are these the policies that are currently in use? > >> ht

Processed: new mailaddress

2008-01-25 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > submitter 233864 Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bug#233864: [powerpc] document need for BootX on oldworld Changed Bug submitter from Laurent Kestemont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > submitter 274115 Holger Levsen <[EMAI

Processed: Re: Bug#462586: lintian: Please don't no-description-in-changes-file for source-only .changes

2008-01-25 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > clone 462586 -1 Bug#462586: lintian: Please don't no-description-in-changes-file for source-only .changes Bug 462586 cloned as bug 462589. > reassign -1 debian-policy Bug#462589: lintian: Please don't no-description-in-changes-file for source-only .c

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-25 Thread Russ Allbery
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm sorry, Uploaders has no "function" except when combined with > DM-Upload-Allowed. One can perfectly upload a package without being in > the Uploaders in the default case. I agree in general, although I will note that Uploaders is also used by the

Re: Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-25 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:31:32AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > In the ruby-extras team, we use: > > Maintainer: the team member "mainly" responsible for the package > > Uploaders: the team mailing list, and the other team members who keep a > > look

Re: Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-25 Thread Bill Allombert
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:31:32AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 24/01/08 at 23:22 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > >> +++---+++ > > >> If the Maintainer: field points to a mailing list then the Uploader: > > >> field has to contain at least one human. > > >> ---+++--- > > > This is a good requi

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-25 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 24/01/08 at 23:22 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> +++---+++ > >> If the Maintainer: field points to a mailing list then the Uploader: > >> field has to contain at least one human. > >> ---+++--- > > This is a good requirement, I think. (Actually, I would have expected > > Uploader to contain o