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

Charles Plessy writes: > I liked the original wording, that implied that if a package is not > maintained, or if its maintainer has given up, then it is orphaned, > regardless how this is documented in the source package. The concern that a couple of people had was that they felt it implied the

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

> #459868 Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list > Need to resolve whether it's appropriate to say that an unmaintained > package "should" be orphaned. Hello everybody, In my impression, the Policy is about how packages should be, and the Developers Reference is about what pa

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 589362 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#589362: debian-policy: formatting error in footnote to 7.7

Jakub Wilk writes: > See the attached patch. Thanks, applied. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Arch

Bug#589362: debian-policy: formatting error in footnote to 7.7

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.0.0 Severity: minor See the attached patch. -- Jakub Wilk diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index ec1acee..07ae48f 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -5055,7 +5055,7 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent There is no Build-Depends-Arc

Bug#186102: version numbering for date-releases is flawed

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 09:58:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here's a proposal that tries to implement that. Objections or seconds? > Someone may want to follow up with a patch to the devref to provide more > details about when to choose what form of a version number and how to use > ~ appropr

Bug#186102: version numbering for date-releases is flawed

(what an old bug ;)) Russ Allbery (16/07/2010): > Here's a proposal that tries to implement that. Objections or seconds? > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > index ec1acee..acef23b 100644 > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -849,36 +849,30 @@ > > > In gener

tools/policy-bug-report added to repository

I wrote a simple Perl script to query the BTS SOAP interface and produce a report of Policy bugs. It still needs work (excluding informative bugs, for instance, and recognizing other stages in the bug lifecycle), but the goal is to eventually turn it into a script that can produce a periodic e-mai

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 104373

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#186102: version numbering for date-releases is flawed

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 09:58:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > > > I therefore think we should rewrite this whole section to remove most of > > the details and instead just say not to ever use date-based formats like > > 96May01 and instead use something based off of MM

Bug#186102: version numbering for date-releases is flawed

Russ Allbery writes: > However, I think this whole bit really doesn't belong in Policy. For > packages that are snapshot-based with no regular version number but one > that might show up later, I'd use 0~MMDD. For ones that are > pre-releases, I'd use ~MMDD. For ones that postdate an >

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 186102 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: retitle 587279 to Clarify restrictions on main to non-free dependencies ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 587279 Clarify restrictions on main to non-free dependencies Bug #587279 [debian-policy] debian-policy: section 2.2.1 needs some tweaking Changed Bug title to 'Clarify restrictions on main to non-free dependencies' from 'debian-policy: se

Bug#104373: Subdirectory under /usr/lib/cgi-lib should be explicitly allowed

Charles Plessy writes: > Le Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 04:21:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : >> I have panicked a bit, thinking that webservers will not look in >> /usr/lib/cgi-bin/ recursively. Also, I was shied by the "Should" level >> of the recommendation (§11.5), understanding it like a stron