Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> severity 458910 minor
Bug#458910: debian-policy: Policy and dpkg disagree on debian revision tests.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> tag 65577 -patch
Bug#65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part
of Debian distribution
Tags were: pending patch
Tags removed: patch
> tag 209008 -p
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.18.1
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> usertags 452393 = informat
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> # Setting up user categories for Policy bug triage and to help in the
> # process. This uses the same classification scheme as mine adjusted by
> # Manoj and previously discussed on the mailing list, with a few
> # modifications so that the existing bug
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Setting up user categories for Policy bug triage and to help in the
> # process. This uses the same classification scheme as mine adjusted by
> # Manoj and previously discussed on the mailing list, with a few
> # modifications so that the existing bu
# Setting up user categories for Policy bug triage and to help in the
# process. This uses the same classification scheme as mine adjusted by
# Manoj and previously discussed on the mailing list, with a few
# modifications so that the existing bug system tags can be used where
# possible:
#
# * Us
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is the patch that I'm applying. If anyone objects, yell now.
Actually, looking at this further, I see the Policy was never updated to
mention the /etc/cron.hourly directory. I'm fixing that as well. Here's
the new combined patch.
--- orig/policy
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.18.1
> tags 403391 pending
Bug#403391: debian-policy: scripts as configuration files: should vs. must
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, stopping processing he
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given that Policy is only really useful when kept in sync with release
> policy, I agree with making a change here. Policy is making a general
> statement and the RC policy is making a specific statement, so how about
> replacing this paragraph with:
>
>
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Okay, here is a new and hopefully final version of the README.source
>> patch. If you have any other comments or concerns, please speak up
>> now; otherwise, I will apply this patch for the next Policy relea
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.18.1
> tags 250202 pending
Bug#250202: [PROPOSAL] "debian/README.source" file for packages with
non-trivial source
Tags were: patch
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, stopping proces
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.18.1
> tags 209008 pending
Bug#209008: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] common interface for parallel building in
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
Tags were: patch
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, stopp
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.18.1
> tags 430649 pending
Bug#430649: Please clarify splitting/syntax of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Pleas
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 05/03/08 at 08:45 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Okay, here's a revised proposal to address both Bug#209008 (parallel) and
>>> Bug#430649 (DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS parsing). This proposal does the following:
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.18.1
> tags 65577 pending
Bug#65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part
of Debian distribution
Tags were: patch
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, s
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.18.1
> tags 291460 pending
Bug#291460: Inclusion of Apache Software License versions in
/usr/share/common-licenses
Tags were: patch
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, stopping proces
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Below is a revised patch that puts the text into section 12.5 instead
>> of here and simplifies the language a little. I think the major open
>> question is how to handle the fact that it makes contrib and n
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have gotten no further feedback on this proposal. I would like to
> resolve this bug for the next Policy release one way or the other.
> Could others reading the Policy list please express an opinion on
> whether we should add the Apache 2.0 license to
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some idea about the number of packages which is enough seems useful. I
> think it should also be taken into account how many people have the
> package installed. That is: the only reason not to put a license in
> there, is that it increases the system siz
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 05:25:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Colin Watson writes ("Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed"):
> > Based on the analysis I did back in 2000, which I think is still largely
> > sound, I think that policy should recommend that 'update-alternatives
> > --
20 matches
Mail list logo
