Paul,
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-06-25 at 16:07 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>
>> Earlier today, I sent the GNU less maintainer a two-line patch to the
>> "charset.c" file after my original email to him.
>
> I'm no expert on the less source code, but it seems to
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:34:27 -0700
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy
Architecture: source all
Version: 4.0.0.4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Policy List
Changed-By: Russ Allbery
Desc
debian-policy_4.0.0.4_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
debian-policy_4.0.0.4.dsc
debian-policy_4.0.0.4.tar.xz
debian-policy_4.0.0.4_all.deb
debian-policy_4.0.0.4_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian
On Sun, 2017-06-25 at 16:07 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> Earlier today, I sent the GNU less maintainer a two-line patch to the
> "charset.c" file after my original email to him.
I'm no expert on the less source code, but it seems to me that it will
also hide U+FEFF characters after the first one. I
On Sun, 2017-06-25 at 16:13:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 09:57:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> - The list of archive sections and their descriptions
>
> > I think this belongs on each archive providing those, alongside the
> > other archive me
Simon McVittie writes:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:43:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Here is an updated version of the patch from earlier in this (now very
>> long) thread for discussion. I still think this is consistent with
>> previous practice and reasonable documentation of what we're curr
Guillem Jover writes:
> On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 09:57:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> - The list of archive sections and their descriptions
> I think this belongs on each archive providing those, alongside the
> other archive metadata. And I'd rather see the involved parties
> defining an appropr
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
>> I did a bit more research, and apparently this approach has become more
>> blessed again...
>
> Okay, I experimented with this, but unfortunately less displays the BOM at
> the start of the file as a very ugly revers
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:43:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is an updated version of the patch from earlier in this (now very
> long) thread for discussion. I still think this is consistent with
> previous practice and reasonable documentation of what we're currently
> doing.
>
> diff --git
Simon McVittie writes:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:08:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> +upstream_version components in
>> +native packages ending in +nmu followed
>> +by a number indicate an NMU of a native package.
> I thought 1.2.3-4+nmu1 was als
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:58:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Everyone seemed generally happy with this text, but it never clearly got
> enough seconds to apply. Here's an updated patch so that we can take
> another run at getting enough seconds and getting it merged.
I second the patch quoted bel
Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> I discussed this a bit on IRC with the other ftp-masters and we came to
> this summary:
> 0) We would like to drop the requirement for packages to not depend on
>packages of lower priority: it is better to declare only what we
>actually want included in the ins
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:08:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> +upstream_version components in
> +native packages ending in +nmu followed
> +by a number indicate an NMU of a native package.
I thought 1.2.3-4+nmu1 was also allowed as an alternative to 1
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 22:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I assume if we allow /usr/libexec, we also need to support
> /usr/libexec/x86_64-linux-gnu/ etc. ?
I'm not sure I see why we would? Platforms with the "multilib" lib/lib64
duality (Red Hat derivatives, etc.) only have one /usr/libexec,
Since we've invalidated old patches with the DocBook conversion, I've gone
through all the old branches in the Policy Git repository and gotten rid
of most of them.
I refreshed three of mine (and sent updated patches to the relevant bugs)
that still seemed to be current and fairly uncontroversial
Russ Allbery writes:
> Looking at this section, there are several issues. One is the issue
> addressed above, and I like Jonathan's wording for that. Another is the
> one Colin mentioned earlier: this only applies to programs installed in
> the system path. (I considered saying programs intend
Raphael Geissert writes:
> After five years of letting the discussion settle down, perhaps there's
> a way to move things forward now?
> Other than the discussion about foo2zjs I think that only Bill believes
> that the new wording proposed in message #56 differs from the current
> practice.
>
It's been a while since the last update to this thread and proposed
wording about the special version numbering conventions in use in Debian,
and in the meantime things have settled out a bit more and we have a
pretty firm consensus on how to handle special versions. I'd therefore
like to resurrec
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 08:26:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:43:10 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > Le Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > > I have not looked at this at all, but this list s
Hi!
On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 09:57:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.0.0.2
> Severity: wishlist
> A discussion in #865720 got me thinking that there is some data maintained
> in Policy that would be useful to have in a machine-readable format. The
> things that hav
On Sun, 2017-06-11 at 20:46:23 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 06:51:49PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.0.0.0
> > Severity: normal
> > section 10.4 says:
> >
> > Scripts may assume that /bin/sh implements the SUSv3 Shell Command
> >
Hi Debian developers,
This e-mail is meant for maintainers of applications that use databases
and for those of you that are interested in how packages should handle
those.
In bug 845255¹ I started the discussion for inclusion of the "best
practices for packaging database applications" in the Debi
[On the use of the UTF-8 signature, aka the BOM, at the start of a UTF-8 file]
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
>> I did a bit more research, and apparently this approach has become more
>> blessed again..
>
> Okay, I experimented with this, but unfor
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > I did a bit more research, and apparently this approach has become more
> > blessed again. I'm glad I looked it up! As of Unicode 5.0, the
...
> Okay, I experimented with this, but unfortunately less displays the BOM at
> the
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:43:10 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
>
> Le Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > I have not looked at this at all, but this list should be aware that it
> > exists.
>
> > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:19:04 -
25 matches
Mail list logo
