Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd rather not do this piecemeal
Fair enough. Thanks for filing the bug, by the way.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://list
Le Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:16:32AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 08:51 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > Done in the attached patch, thanks.
>
> I didn't see the comments from Charles Plessy as I wasn't subscribed to
> the bug and he did not CC me. I've attached a new version ado
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Le 16/09/2012 21:16, Paul Wise a écrit :
>
> -Moving, removing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning packages
> +Moving, removing, reintroducing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning
> packages
>
I guess “reintroducing” should be the last item o
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 08:51 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Done in the attached patch, thanks.
I didn't see the comments from Charles Plessy as I wasn't subscribed to
the bug and he did not CC me. I've attached a new version adopting his
suggestions.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Ind
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 13:28 +, Bart Martens wrote:
> I'm looking at this now. I agree with most of your patch. I'm having doubts
> on this paragraph :
...
> I suggest to replace the paragraph quoted above by these two paragraphs :
Done in the attached patch, thanks.
Based on feedback from
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> To be precise, am I correct in assuming this means documenting the
> following?
> * the Multi-Arch field (meaning of values "same", "foreign",
>"allowed")
> * how the Architecture field affects dependencies
> * installation, configuration, upgrade, and removal pr
Russ Allbery wrote:
> There are various bugs already filed about some edge cases and
> specific issues with multiarch, but none to track the general
> documentation of multiarch handling in Policy. This bug will be
> used to discuss the overall wording.
To be precise, am I correct in assuming th
Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 08:38:51PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>
> Apparently I need an ack on my patch to devref about the procedures
> needed when re-introducing packages. I would appreciate it if someone
> from the debian-qa list (CCed) could take a look at the patch and
> suggest if the patch n
Le Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 01:34:25PM -0400, David Prévot a écrit :
>
> That would be
>
> debconf-escape 1
Thanks, it works. I attached the updated patch.
If one more person seconds it, perhpas Russ can apply it for the
next revision of the Policy ? It is not particularly important,
but would
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
There are various bugs already filed about some edge cases and
specific issues with multiarch, but none to track the general
documentation of multiarch handling in Policy. This bug will be
used to discuss the overall wording. It's possible some of the
exis
Well, clearly my plan to do this a couple of weeks ago didn't actually
work, so new plan. I'm planning on uploading Policy 3.9.4 Tuesday evening
(2012-09-18). My hope is to then start working on documenting multiarch.
Sorry about the delay.
For Lintian folks, here's the upgrading checklist for
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 policykit-1
Bug #687844 [debian-policy] debian-policy:
GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1.Error.Failed:
Bug reassigned from package 'debian-policy' to 'policykit-1'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #687844 to the same values
previous
Control: reassign -1 policykit-1
Piotr writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
> Dear Maintainer,
> I have Wheezy with LXDE and all updates are done, but after startup I
> get this Error:
> GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1.Error.Failed: An authentication agent
> already exi
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I have Wheezy with LXDE and all updates are done, but after startup I get this
Error:
GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1.Error.Failed: An authentication agent
already exists for the given subject
kind regards
Piotr
-- System Infor
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 08:38:51PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > My patch does not seem to have been committed to the SVN repository,
> > could someone do that please?
>
> Apparently I need an ack on my patch to devref about the procedures
> n
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> My patch does not seem to have been committed to the SVN repository,
> could someone do that please?
Apparently I need an ack on my patch to devref about the procedures
needed when re-introducing packages. I would appreciate it if someone
from
On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 11:43 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> I changed the sentence to make it clear that this is only triggered by
> removals from unstable. Updated patch attached.
My patch does not seem to have been committed to the SVN repository,
could someone do that please?
--
bye,
pabs
http://
17 matches
Mail list logo
