Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, setting package to debian-policy, usertagging 509732 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny1 > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > package debian-policy Ignoring bugs not assigned to: deb

Bug#509732: Debian Policy doesn't include directive for filing RC bugs against the Policy

I've reviewed the entire discussion in this bug, and I don't believe there is a problem here other than possibly confusing or incomplete documentation of the workflow involved in Debian. Let me recap to ensure that I understood the problem report and then try to explain why I don't believe this bu

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, setting package to debian-policy, severity of 224509 is minor ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny1 > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > package debian-policy Ignoring bugs not assigned to: deb

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, setting package to debian-policy, severity of 511804 is minor

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny1 > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > package debian-policy Ignoring bugs not assigned to: deb

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, setting package to debian-policy, tagging 473019 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny1 > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > package debian-policy Ignoring bugs not assigned to: deb

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, setting package to debian-policy, usertagging 511804 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny1 > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > package debian-policy Ignoring bugs not assigned to: deb

Bug#504880: Disambiguate "installed" for packages

Colin's original patch had one second from Raphael and it looks good to me as well, so I think we're about ready to commit this for the next Policy release. I also added this hunk based on the bug discussion: @@ -4285,8 +4285,8 @@ Build-Depends: foo [!i386] | bar [!amd64] removal order

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, setting package to debian-policy, tagging 470994 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny1 > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > package debian-policy Ignoring bugs not assigned to: deb

Bug#470994: mail_spool default mode is 0660

Andrew McMillan writes: > I've read through the report in full and I'm happy to second this also. Thanks! I'm committing it now for the next release. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debi

Bug#470994: mail_spool default mode is 0660

On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 15:42 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > This is a ping for this proposed change for additional seconds or > objections. It would relax the requirement in Policy that mail spool > files be mode 0660 and permit them to be mode 0600 if the MDA system used > does deliveries as the

Re: Bits from the Policy Team, call for volunteers

Bill Allombert writes: > Well, I think we should somehow do a better job of documenting in the > Policy itself why a decision has been made. If you look at the threads > "Debian version numbers and strcmp()" and "mail_spool default mode is > 0660" it would have been very useful to have a pointer

Re: Bits from the Policy Team, call for volunteers

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:08:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > > I would like to be a Policy delegate. > > Hi Bill, > > I think that sounds great. Thanks! > Most of the work is in the BTS, and most of that is tackling an open > issue, trying to figure out what to d

Bug#509932: shlibs format only addresses one versioning structure

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:12:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.8.0.1 > Severity: minor > > The current description of the shlibs format in section 8.6.3 assumes > all shared libraries have SONAMEs of the form libfoo.so.. > However, Debian's tools also support a

Bug#509932: shlibs format only addresses one versioning structure

Bill Allombert writes: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:12:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> The current description of the shlibs format in section 8.6.3 assumes >> all shared libraries have SONAMEs of the form libfoo.so.. >> However, Debian's tools also support a versioned SONAME of the form >> li

Processed: Bug#511804: menu.txt.gz: Please list full section name in headings

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 511804 debian-policy Bug#511804: menu.txt.gz: Please list full section name in headings Bug reassigned from package `menu' to `debian-policy'. > quit Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracki

Re: Bug#511804: menu.txt.gz: Please list full section name in headings

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 04:30:31PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > Package: menu > Version: 2.1.41 > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > I've often had trouble finding out which parent(s) a member of nested > menu sections belongs to. For example, reading the menu.txt.gz one > could assume that Applicati

Bug#473439: pick consistent terminology for category/component/area

Kurt Roeckx writes: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 03:37:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml >> > index 24c9072..16919b2 100644 >> > --- a/policy.sgml >> > +++ b/policy.sgml >> > @@ -293,7 +293,13 @@ >> >free in our sense (see the Debian Free Software >> >

Bug#470994: mail_spool default mode is 0660

Kurt Roeckx writes: [see http://bugs.debian.org/470994] > I second this. Thanks! We need another second for this to go into the next release of Policy, so I'm continuing to hold this one for review. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSU

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, setting package to debian-policy, tagging 163666 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny1 > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > package debian-policy Ignoring bugs not assigned to: deb

Bug#163666: debian-policy: Unclear result with [arch] and |

Don Armstrong writes: > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Russ Allbery wrote: >> + If the architecture-restricted dependency is part of a set of >> + alternatives using |, that branch of the alternative is >> + ignored completely on architectures that do not match the >> + rest

Bug#163666: debian-policy: Unclear result with [arch] and |

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes: > Greetings from this new -policy subscriber! > > Russ Allbery wrote: >> @@ -4188,6 +4188,22 @@ Build-Depends-Indep: texinfo >> Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2.10 [!hurd-i386], >>hurd-dev [hurd-i386], gnumach-dev [hurd-i386] >> >> + require