Bug#759186: debian-policy: please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible value for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to policy

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Hi, please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS value to § 4.9.1 [1]. The value "nodoc" or "nodocs" is currently used in 72 source packages according to [2]. Documenting "nodoc" in policy would avoid the confusion between the two. The

[developers-reference] 02/05: Mention getting removed from e-mail aliases in retiring procedure. Closes: #736232

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. lucas pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit bb9e357ebe47e335ce5b8cb513f97bc23385e5de Author: Lucas Nussbaum Date: Sun Aug 24 14:41:01 2014 -0700 Mention getting removed from e-mail ali

[developers-reference] 01/05: Mention rationale for including the description in ITPs. Closes: #494332

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. lucas pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit 97f8e71c422c4951a94d4f10bfe2c0a3b026e078 Author: Lucas Nussbaum Date: Sun Aug 24 14:34:31 2014 -0700 Mention rationale for including the des

Bug#758234: debian-policy: allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority

Hi Russ, Russ Allbery wrote: > Third, to address your concern about the process, what about consensus > review on debian-devel for any change in priority to required or > important (that is not a downgrade from required to important)? Consensus > review isn't the best process, since sometimes it

Bug#646235: marked as done (developers-reference: Please keep this package up-to-date in stable)

Your message dated Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:15:42 -0700 with message-id <20140824221542.ga8...@xanadu.blop.info> and subject line Re: Bug#646235: developers-reference: Please keep this package up-to-date in stable has caused the Debian Bug report #646235, regarding developers-reference: Please keep thi

Bug#758234: debian-policy: allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority

Gerrit Pape writes: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 09:03:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Gerrit Pape writes: >>> Hi, in my opinion this paragraph in policy is just fine >> I really don't agree. Policy currently implies that the maintainers of >> packages control their priority settings in the ar

Processed: tagging 736232

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 736232 + pending Bug #736232 [developers-reference] Missing point in retire procedure: Getting removed from e-mail aliases Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 736232: http:

Processed: tagging 494332

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 494332 + pending Bug #494332 [developers-reference] developers-reference: mention explicitely that ITPs must be Cced to -devel@, and why. Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. --

Processed: tagging 686253

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 686253 + pending Bug #686253 [developers-reference-de] developers-reference-de: Fix some typos Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 686253: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr