Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was ple...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
limit package debian-policy
retitle 628174 'debian-policy: Moving the syntax for architecture restrictions
from §11 to §7 or §5?'
usertags 628174 + issue
usertags 628174 + informative
severity 628174 wishlist
thanks
Le Sun, May 29, 2011 at 03:53:54PM +0200,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 06:08:25PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have no objection to this for 1.0, provided we at the same time clarify
> that if more than one exception is in use, you need to use a custom
> shortname instead of an ORed or ANDed list of licenses.
>
> Is there a consensus for t
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:31:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > Is there a concrete example where we need to support multiple exceptions ?
> >
> > If not, I propose to follow and document the current practice, which is to
> > support only one. This has the advantage that it will not be ne
* Steve Langasek , 2011-11-15, 18:08:
Is there a concrete example where we need to support multiple
exceptions?
If not, I propose to follow and document the current practice, which
is to support only one. This has the advantage that it will not be
needed to implement new functions in parsers,
5 matches
Mail list logo
