Charles Plessy wrote:
> --- a/copyright-format/copyright-format.xml
> +++ b/copyright-format/copyright-format.xml
> @@ -558,8 +558,7 @@ License: MPL-1.1
>
>
> Currently, the full text of the licenses is only available in the
> -url="http://spdx.org/wiki/working-v
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Dear Policy maintainers,
as discussed on debian-project@l.d.o, here is a patch for DEP 5, to link to the
SPDX license registry instead of its working version.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
>From 698033147768055e8c75c1ca06474
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:09:40PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (culled cc list of a few people I know read -devel)
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > Given the need to consider unlocking as well as locking, I'm not sure
> > it's worth adding special support to deluser: the typical logic used
> > to cr
Some notes for completeness.
Matthias Klose wrote:
> - cmake: VERBOSE=1 (?)
Yes, or "cmake -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=1" at configure time.
> - automake: V=1
As KiBi mentioned, --disable-silent-rules at configure time works,
too.
> - linux kernel: V=1
The KBUILD_VERBOSE environment variable
Bill Allombert (29/05/2011):
> To start with, do you know how to desactivate that feature in cmake
> and automake (and the linux kernel)?
For automake.
When running make: V=1 to enable verbosity again if silent rules were
enabled.
At configure time: --disable-silent-rules does what the name sug
On 05/29/2011 08:11 PM, Bill Allombert wrote:
To start with, do you know how to desactivate that feature in cmake and automake
(and the linux kernel)?
- cmake: VERBOSE=1 (?)
- automake: V=1
- linux kernel: V=1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 07:59:42PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.2.0
> Severity: normal
>
> [https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/03/msg00016.html]
>
> It was suggested to move this to debian-policy.
>
> It's always interesting to look at build logs
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
[https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/03/msg00016.html]
It was suggested to move this to debian-policy.
It's always interesting to look at build logs, or to receive bug reports of the
form
CC
or
CCLD
without knowing
(culled cc list of a few people I know read -devel)
Roger Leigh wrote:
> Given the need to consider unlocking as well as locking, I'm not sure
> it's worth adding special support to deluser: the typical logic used
> to create the user will be insufficient to unlock, so it's no less
> the effort to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 608324 + wontfix
Bug #608324 [debian-policy] please add Affero license to
/usr/share/common-licenses
Bug #621462 [debian-policy] base-files: missing AGPL-3 license
Added tag(s) wontfix.
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
tags 608324 + wontfix
quit
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:30:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> reassign 608324 debian-policy
> thanks
>
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, Ana Guerrero wrote:
>
> > Package: base-files
> > Version: 6.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have seen you did recently an u
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 09:53:52PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Is there progress on the implementation of this feature ?
>
> So far there are a single second and Niko partial objection.
>
> For my part, I think this is important that the feature be documented (if
> implemented)
> but not nece
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> merge 608324 621462
Bug#608324: please add Affero license to /usr/share/common-licenses
Bug#621462: base-files: missing AGPL-3 license
Merged 608324 621462.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
608324:
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:08:38AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:18:17PM +0100, Stuart Prescott a écrit :
> >
> > Currently, §7.1 refers to the archtecture restriction syntax and
> > architecture
> > wildards without defining what the syntax for these restrictions is.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:04:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#621833: System users: removing them"):
> > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > > > I second your original pr
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#621833: System users: removing them"):
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > > I second your original proposal though, that packages must not delete
> > > system users that
I am managing a package that does 'userdel' in a purge. It removes the
home directory as that contains config files. I am a bit concerned about
disabling the account further, because then I will have to add more
logic about reenabling it in certain scenarios.
--
Nicholas Bamber | http://www.peria
17 matches
Mail list logo
