On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 10:05 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As one of the (ex-)?dev-ref maintainers, I was also asked to comment by
> Raphael.
>
> Generally, I think that the patch goes in the right direction.
>
> I'd like to suggest changes to the last paragraph, though:
> Lack of atten
Hi,
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:38:06PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
>>
>> I think the wording in chapter 5 (Control files and their fields) is
>> quite unclear where multi-line fields are allowed. I am mostly
>> interested in debian/control in source files, so I'll
Le Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:38:06PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
>
> I think the wording in chapter 5 (Control files and their fields) is
> quite unclear where multi-line fields are allowed. I am mostly
> interested in debian/control in source files, so I'll just discuss this
> here.
Dear An
Hi!
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:22:22PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>
> Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
>
> > The debian policy section 9.5 [1] suggests using the package name as a
> > file name when creating files in /etc/cron.d, /etc/cron.hourly,
> > /etc/cron.daily etc. This works well
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
I think the wording in chapter 5 (Control files and their fields) is
quite unclear where multi-line fields are allowed. I am mostly
interested in debian/control in source files, so I'll just discuss this
here.
Accoring to [1] only Upl
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:11:05AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > As the name imply, this a reference document, not a prescriptive document.
> > It should
> > provide technical answer to technical question. Fundamentally it only
> > pr
Hi Bill,
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
> As the name imply, this a reference document, not a prescriptive document. It
> should
> provide technical answer to technical question. Fundamentally it only
> provides advices.
> Patronizing would be bad form.
Please be specific, can you
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:21:19PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> let's focus on Raphaël's patch. I do not want to be dragged in dicussion that
> pile up misunderstandings on misunderstandings.
>
> So I will be blunt. Perhaps I should have been in my answer to Raphaël's
> request
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'd like to suggest changes to the last paragraph, though:
> Lack of attention to RC bugs is often interpreted by the QA team as a sign
> that the maintainer has disappeared without properly orphaning his package.
> -Don't be surprised if the MIA team
Hi,
As one of the (ex-)?dev-ref maintainers, I was also asked to comment by
Raphael.
Generally, I think that the patch goes in the right direction.
I'd like to suggest changes to the last paragraph, though:
Lack of attention to RC bugs is often interpreted by the QA team as a sign
that the mai
10 matches
Mail list logo
