Bug#567845: debian-policy: broken formatting of upgrading-checklist.txt?

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 03:20:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:12:39PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > >> It looks much better, thank you for your improvements! (I personally > >> will miss the 'old' layout, which takes less space/was

Bug#567845: debian-policy: broken formatting of upgrading-checklist.txt?

Bill Allombert writes: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 03:20:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> 3.8.4.1 I think you mean. I don't think we have any normative changes >> since the last release, so I think that would be the right version >> number. > Are there other changes pending beside #566220 ? Pr

Bug#567845: debian-policy: broken formatting of upgrading-checklist.txt?

Bill Allombert writes: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:12:39PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: >> It looks much better, thank you for your improvements! (I personally >> will miss the 'old' layout, which takes less space/was more copact and >> had the references on the right side, but the new one

Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 06:19:26PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org > usertags 566220 + seconded > thanks > > Hi, > > I see seconds by > > Steve Langasek (message #137) > Thijs Kinkhorst (message #142) > Julien Cristau (message #147) > gregor herr

Bug#567845: debian-policy: broken formatting of upgrading-checklist.txt?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:12:39PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Bill > > Thanks, I have made them available at: > > > > It looks much better, thank you for your improvements! (I personally > will miss the 'old' layout, which takes less space/

Re: UPG and the default umask

Roger Leigh writes: > On 20/05/2010 18:30, Russ Allbery wrote: >> You can't move the static reserved space: it contains statically >> assigned UIDs. :) That's the whole point of it. We could change >> where we're assigning future static UIDs and GIDs from, but I'm not >> sure it's worth the ef

Re: UPG and the default umask

On 20/05/2010 20:43, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:31:36PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: Do we have any actual users of this space? I didn't see anything in Policy. Is there a central database listing the assignments? If so, where may it be found? /usr/share/doc/base-passwd/R

Re: UPG and the default umask

On 20/05/2010 18:30, Russ Allbery wrote: Roger Leigh writes: If all current Debian systems support a 32-bit UID and GID range, then it would be great if we could amend Policy to move the reserved ranges to the end of the 32-bit range rather than being at the end of the 16-bit range. This woul

Re: UPG and the default umask

"Roger Leigh" a écrit : >On 20/05/2010 18:30, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Roger Leigh writes: >> >>> If all current Debian systems support a 32-bit UID and GID range, then >>> it would be great if we could amend Policy to move the reserved ranges >>> to the end of the 32-bit range rather than bein

Re: Bug#575786: dpkg: refuses to unpack package having conflicts+replaces of virtual package

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:12:35PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > severity 575786 important > thanks > > On Sun, 09 May 2010, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > > Totally tired with having this bug here and there with different > > packages, I change my mind and bump the severity of this bug to > > ser

Re: UPG and the default umask

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:31:36PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > Do we have any actual users of this space? I didn't see anything in > Policy. Is there a central database listing the assignments? If > so, where may it be found? /usr/share/doc/base-passwd/README > The main justification I would h

Re: UPG and the default umask

Roger Leigh writes: > If all current Debian systems support a 32-bit UID and GID range, then > it would be great if we could amend Policy to move the reserved ranges > to the end of the 32-bit range rather than being at the end of the > 16-bit range. This would give a vast contiguous user range

Re: UPG and the default umask

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 02:34:30PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2010, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > So I agree that the sane thing to do here is, at least, to use the > > > same default range as /etc/adduser.conf (which in