Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 779506 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#821859: debian-policy: New virtual package ‘adventure’

Ben Finney writes: > On 20-Apr-2016, Ben Finney wrote: >> We intend to use the ‘adventure’ virtual package name, to declare >> providing an implementation of the classic game Adventure. > An announcement of this at ‘debian-devel’ on 2016-04-20 with Message-Id > <85zispp4gn@benfinney.id.au> a

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 759316 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 821859 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#759492: File conflicts between /bin and /usr/bin

Ansgar Burchardt writes: > Seconded. > Though shouldn't this be worded a bit more generic? There are also > /lib32 vs /usr/lib32 and /lib64 vs /usr/lib64 (and possibly other > suffixes like libx32). > Also I don't think Policy should require maintainer scripts for the > implementation of compat

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 737796 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 835451 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#840002: marked as done ([5.6.12 Version] Wrong version ordering with "+XXXX" suffixes)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:52:23 -0800 with message-id <87d1g746hk@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#840002: [5.6.12 Version] Wrong version ordering with "+" suffixes has caused the Debian Bug report #840002, regarding [5.6.12 Version] Wrong version ordering with "+"

Bug#829367: Please add virtual-mysql-* packages to the official list of virtual packages

> From: Otto Kekäläinen > Subject: Re: Please add virtual-mysql-* pacakges to the official list of > virtual packages > To: Bill Allombert > Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, Paul Gevers > 2016-07-02 20:12 GMT+01:00 Bill Allombert > : >> Could you provide the list of the new virtual package

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 833177 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 829367 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#824922: debian-policy: d/copyright examples give dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique lintian warning

Stefan writes: > while updating my package I followed the examples under > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > however those generate the linintian warning > dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique. > Attached are two patches that should fix this wa

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 822430 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#816515: Disallow (< ...) and (> ...) package relations

"Paul R. Tagliamonte" writes: > The language is not clear - I think Jakub covered my concerns clearly. > Open to wording changes? I consider this all non-normative, so I've just applied the following change that will hopefully make it completely clear that the < and > relations are no longer al

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 809637 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#806161: marked as done (Deprecating menu files and transition to desktop files)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:14:57 -0800 with message-id <87h95j5v4e@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#806161: Implementing #741573 in policy via NMU has caused the Debian Bug report #806161, regarding Deprecating menu files and transition to desktop files to be marked as done.

Processed: reassign 835876 to debian-policy

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 835876 debian-policy Bug #835876 [src:debian-policy] debian-policy: please suggest dbus-run-session to run tests Bug reassigned from package 'src:debian-policy' to 'debian-policy'. No longer marked as found in versions debian-policy/3.9.

Bug#798309: perl: multi-arch packages don't comply with perl policy

Dominic Hargreaves writes: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 05:46:50PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:05:14PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:24:03PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: The perl policy should be updated to reflect the new impleme

Bug#770440: debian-policy: policy should mention systemd timers

Alexandre Detiste writes: > I've seen that util-linux was the first package that started providing a > native systemd timer for fstrim, but this change got reverted. >> util-linux (2.25.2-3) unstable; urgency=medium >> * Ship fstrim timer/service units as examples only (Closes: #767194) >> - t

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 798309 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 835876 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#796660: Binaries in binary packages match the architecture

Florian Weimer writes: > It seems to me that a requirement is missing from the policy that > binaries (DSOs and executables) which are intended to run on the host > must be located in a binary package, and the architecture of the > binary package must match the DSO/executable architecture. > For

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 795783 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#796642: marked as done (debian-policy: hardening is an afterthought and should never be)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:01:35 -0800 with message-id <87vatz5vqo@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#796642: debian-policy: hardening is an afterthought and should never be has caused the Debian Bug report #796642, regarding debian-policy: hardening is an afterthought and sh

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 780725 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#768117: debian-policy: WSGI API must distinguish between Python 2 and 3

Bill Allombert writes: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 07:08:31PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: >> Thanks for your clarification. Is the attached patch OK ? >> diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt >> index f52ddba..f68133f 100644 >> --- a/virtual-package-names-l

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 768117 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 769273 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 742532 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#742532: marked as done (Document media type declarations)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 18:30:22 -0800 with message-id <878tqv7br5@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#742532: Document media type declarations has caused the Debian Bug report #742532, regarding Document media type declarations to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#736943: marked as done (debian-policy: PHP draft policy and wiki out of date WRT filesystem layout)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 18:27:54 -0800 with message-id <87eg0n7bv9@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#736943: debian-policy: PHP draft policy and wiki out of date WRT filesystem layout has caused the Debian Bug report #736943, regarding debian-policy: PHP draft policy and wik

Bug#729325: marked as done (debian-policy: [FHS] /usr/local/lib/firmware not a good directory for hardware plugged in at sytsm boot)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 18:26:52 -0800 with message-id <87inpz7bwz@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#729325: Debian Wiki: Re: Bug#729325: debian-policy: [FHS] /usr/local/lib/firmware not a good directory for hardware plugged in at sytsm boot has caused the Debian Bug report

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 661496 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#835876: debian-policy: please suggest dbus-run-session to run tests

Simon McVittie writes: > As described in > I'm trying > to reduce how much dbus-launch is used in Debian. > The autopkgtest document in debian-policy currently mentions dbus-launch > as a possible wrapper around test commands. Please

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 816249 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#816249: debian-policy: C.2.4 does not reflect current practises

Niels Thykier writes: > The section C.2.4 seems to be a bit outdated. Quote: > """ > C.2.4 debian/tmp > This is the canonical temporary location for the construction of > binary packages by the binary target. The directory tmp serves as the > root of the file system tree as it is being constru

Bug#794902: debian-policy: obsolete footnote about liblockfile1 dependency

Jakub Wilk writes: > A footnote in §11.6 reads: > “You will need to depend on `liblockfile1 (>>1.01)' to use these [maillock > and mailunlock] functions.” > This seems to suggest hardcoding shared library dependency in debian/control, > which is a bad idea. Anyway, liblockfile 1.01 was released

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 794902 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#821365: debian-policy: Clarify which characters constitute the syntax of control files

Ben Finney writes: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: minor > Control: tags -1 + patch > The description of control file syntax in §5.1 references numerous > characters, some by number and some as simple display of the > character, and some as informal names. Some of these mentions are > confu

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 821365 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 793999 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#793999: debian-policy: description of binary* targets suggests that build-{arch,indep} are optional

Charles Plessy writes: > thanks for the report. In addition, I found a footnote that was > similarly inaccurate. > Here is a patch that would correct both. This patch differs from your > suggestion in that it does remove "should depend on the ‘build’ target": > packages were binary-arch depend

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 822059 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: reassign 822059 to debian-policy

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 822059 debian-policy Bug #822059 [src:debian-policy] Wrong date in upgrading-checklist Bug reassigned from package 'src:debian-policy' to 'debian-policy'. No longer marked as found in versions debian-policy/3.9.8.0. Ignoring request to al

Bug#830989: debian-policy: Typos "the the" in "4.4 Debian changelog: debian/changelog" and "8.6.3.2 The symbols File Format"

Valentin Samir writes: > Reading the debian policy for the first time, I notice two minor typos > where 'the' is repeated. > The first time in §4.4: > "+ or - is the the time zone offset from Coordinated Universal > Time (UTC)." > The second time in §8.6.3.2 > "To explain this

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 830989 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#822059: Wrong date in upgrading-checklist

Reiner Herrmann writes: > Source: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.8 > Tags: patch > Severity: minor > the upgrading-checklist contains an incorrect date for version 3.9.8.0. > It was released in April, not in February. > 3.9.8 is also not yet pushed to git. Thanks, this will be fixed in the next

Bug#823910: debian-policy: document Build-Depends-Arch/Build-Conflicts-Arch and when it's safe to use them

Johannes Schauer writes: > Instead, I'd like to make a case for inclusion of Build-Depends-Arch and > Build-Conflicts-Arch here: > - the fields add symmetry to the existing Build-Depends-Indep and >Build-Conflicts-Indep fields > - the mapping of Build-*-Indep to the build-indep target make

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 823348 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#823348: Limit the strongest dependencies on supplemental -doc packages

Josh Triplett writes: > Based on a thread on debian-devel about Recommends, I'd like to propose > the attached change to policy, which limits the strongest dependency a > package should declare on its supplemental -doc package. > This mostly documents existing practice. Packages don't tend to d

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 732445 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#734662: Please add an example of arch-specific dependency with more than one architecture

Martin Quinson writes: > Hello, an example of architecture-restricted dependency with more than > one arch should probably be added to the section 7.1 "Syntax of > relationship fields" of the policy. The document already specify that > the list is space-separated, but an example would still be we

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 567033 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 845715 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

Tanguy Ortolo writes: > The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build > binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how > ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the Reject > FAQ (search for >

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 768292 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#793493: debian-policy: Update dpkg-architecture flags information

Guillem Jover writes: > Here's a partial update to match the current dpkg-architecture output. > I've left the MULTIARCH variable alone, because that's supposedly > tracked on another bug. > The wording might be a bit unnatural, review by a native speaker > advised. :) These all look good to me

Bug#835052: marked as done (base-files: Add to licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:35:09 -0800 with message-id <87shp3ad02@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#835052: base-files: Add to licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses has caused the Debian Bug report #835052, regarding base-files: Add to licenses in /usr/share/common-license

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, unmerging 835052

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: Re: Bug#768292: Add the MPL licenses to common-licenses

Processing control commands: > reopen -1 Bug #768292 {Done: Russ Allbery } [debian-policy] debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files Bug reopened Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #768292 to the same values previously set -- 768292: ht

Bug#768292: Add the MPL licenses to common-licenses

Control: reopen -1 > It looks like there was a breakdown of communication from Policy > maintenance to you with an addition to common-licenses. Following > discussion in Bug#768292, we decided to add MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 to > common-licenses, and the relevant Policy change landed in 3.9.7.0. But

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 768292 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#768292: marked as done (debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:18:53 -0800 with message-id <8737h3bsbm@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#768292: Add the MPL licenses to common-licenses has caused the Debian Bug report #768292, regarding debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in sep

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 728200 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 781654 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#781654: copyright-format: "IBM CPL" -> "CPL" in license short names table

Charles Plessy writes: > Stefano Zacchiroli writes: >> in the short name license tables, shipped as part of the machine readable >> copyright format specification and available online at >> >> >> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name >> >> t

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 688220 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 452393 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 810381 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 837478 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 773557 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#831047: marked as done (debian-policy: two Debian Policy versions were released, but not announced on d-devel-announce)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:25:25 -0800 with message-id <87inpzbusq@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#831047: debian-policy: two Debian Policy versions were released, but not announced on d-devel-announce has caused the Debian Bug report #831047, regarding debian-policy: two

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 790949 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 802501 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 776557 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 726998 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 742364 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 849483 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '