Jonathan Nieder writes:
> I can understand the temptation. I might be the only one that is
> tempted to read the changes as commands directed to the packager
Oh! Okay, that, plus a review of the older entries, helped me understand
what you're seeing. Some of the entries read like a changelog
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Looking back at older entries, the ones I wrote for previous releases are
> also in present tense. Could we standardize in that direction instead?
I can understand the temptation. I might be the only one that is
tempted to read the changes as commands directed to the packa
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist
User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: informative
Steve Langasek wrote[1]:
> Since we don't want to wait until the next release cycle before being able
> to proceed to step 5, this does mean that a transitional dependency is
>
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Alternately, if we're going to standardize on past tense, we should
> probably go ahead and fix everything back to 3.8.0 or so, which seems to
> be when I started introducing present tense. (It looks like Manoj was
> using past tense.)
Here's a rough patch on top to do that
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> A tiny nitpick: I found it jarring when the upgrading-checklist switched
> from past tense to present tense. I suppose it is because I kept
> finding myself switching context when reading it: unlike a changelog,
> which paraphrases a patch that will command the code to
Hi,
A tiny nitpick: I found it jarring when the upgrading-checklist
switched from past tense to present tense. I suppose it is because I
kept finding myself switching context when reading it: unlike a
changelog, which paraphrases a patch that will command the code to
change, the upgrading checkli
Am 05.04.2011 20:13, schrieb Bill Allombert:
> I suggest to wait until /run exists in unstable systems, but not until
> packages are
> using it. This allows developers to notice the change and maybe comment on
> the patch.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/base-files/news/20110405T161708Z.html
--
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:34:38PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.1.0
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> Please could you add /run as an exception to the FHS? I've attached
> a patch with proposed text.
>
> References:
> #620191 - initscripts support for /run
>
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:59:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> sergey writes:
>
> I do appreciate the problem that you're trying to solve here, but I don't
> think that Policy is the place to do it.
>
> There are a couple of different types of documentation in play, and the
> requirements in te
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:27:48PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > + replacement for /var/run, and its
> > + subdirectory /run/lock is a replacement for
> > + /var/lock. These changes have been
> > + adopted by most distributions
sergey writes:
> I do not know Debian internal structure well. Is it possible that Debian
> has other place for my suggestion? Some document that give global
> recommendations for cases other than system components interoperability?
Kind of, in the Developer's Reference. There isn't a lot of th
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 20:17:03 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hi sergey,
>
> For the reasons already discussed by others, I don't think that Policy is
> the appropriate place to do this. There's definitely some merit to the
> idea, but I don't think it rises to the level of making it a Policy
> reco
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:59:10 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I do appreciate the problem that you're trying to solve here, but I don't
> think that Policy is the place to do it.
If we have such problem in 1 or 2 documents - this is just bugs of this
documents. But now we have problem in most of Debi
Hi!
> + replacement for /var/run, and its
> + subdirectory /run/lock is a replacement for
> + /var/lock. These changes have been
> + adopted by most distributions and have been proposed
> + for inclusion in a fut
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:55:21PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Roger Leigh (04/04/2011):
> > + should not be preserved across reboot.
>
> “reboots” if you want to stay consistent with the hunk below.
>
> > + contents are not preserved across reboots. This
>
Roger Leigh (05/04/2011):
> Updated patch attached. To match existing usage in the document,
> I've switch both to the singular "reboot" since the contents will
> be lost over a single reboot. Hope that's OK?
Surely.
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
Roger Leigh (04/04/2011):
> + additionally allowed: /run,
> + /sys and /selinux.
> + The /run directory is a
> + replacement for /var/run, and its
> + subdirectory /run/lock is a replacement for
> +
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:10, Bill Allombert
wrote:
> Hello Ignace and Sean,
>
> Sorry for the long delay.
>
> Generally we need at least three apps before creating a new menu section.
>
> The issue here is that most window management softwares are specific to a
> single window manager. In that ca
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 09:11:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> It's been a very long time since 3.9.1, and we've accumulated a pile of
> stuff in the Git repository. There are still tons of bugs that need more
> review, more proposals we could get closure on, and so forth, bu
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 08:24:08PM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am having some trouble finding the proper menu section to place my
> application Alltray [1]. Alltray lets you minimize to the system tray
> any windowed application.
>
> I found this bug report, and thought that fbp
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 11:23:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 08:42:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=515837
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> this comment will perhaps not help the bug to be closed, but I note that
Your message dated Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:19:02 +0200
with message-id <20110405081902.GB6964@yellowpig>
and subject line Re: Bug#620674: base-files: Please include the text of the
Open Font License (OFL) in /usr/share/common-licenses
has caused the Debian Bug report #620674,
regarding base-files: Plea
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:34:38PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.1.0
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> Please could you add /run as an exception to the FHS? I've attached
> a patch with proposed text.
>
> References:
> #620191 - initscripts support for /run
>
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 05:03:47AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> reassign 620566 debian-policy
> severity 620566 normal
> tags 620566 patch
> retitle 620566 Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now
> thanks
>
> On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 21:28:08 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> >
24 matches
Mail list logo
