Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk writes:
>>> Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired
>>> maintainer would be very bad.
>> I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking
>> about
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired
> > maintainer would be very bad.
>
> I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking about
> team-maintained packa
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:16:30PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
> > > proponents: What does th
Adrian Bunk writes:
> Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired
> maintainer would be very bad.
I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking about
team-maintained packages. The whole *point* of team maintenance is that
there's no reason to orp
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:11:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tobias Frost writes:
>
> > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have
> > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a
> > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did not recogn
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
> > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,
> > actually give others? Are they
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
>...
> What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
> proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,
> actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons
> privately when emai
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
> proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,
> actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons
> privately when emails to
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:04:17PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> […]
> Thanks for putting my thoughts (again!) into better words than I ever
> could!
+1
> > (I am entirely in favor of giving the MIA team more actual power.)
> (Me too.
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy.
> >
> > This would not be "a purely informative change".
> >
> > Your suggested wording has
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:25:32 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
Thanks for your long and elaborate email.
Unfortunately I find myself disagreeing with your two main points:
> I wonder whether we are framing this in the right way anyway. There
> are two orthogonal questions in my mind:
> - is a speci
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tobias Frost writes:
> > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have
> > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a
> > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did not recognize that
Sean Whitton writes:
> These commits entirely delete some sections. Do we need to update
> references, or is it okay to have the old numbers in section id fields,
> with docbook renumbering the sections in the output formats?
> Please let me know how this has been handled previously.
Previousl
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:31:43PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> What I tried to do was to update the description to "current" *sysvinit*
> standards. (Where "current" means several releases ago. Don't remember
> when we made insserv/startpar non-optional in Debian but it was
> definitely pre-
Hello Sean Whitton,
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached
> the diff to which my second applies.
>
> The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use
> debhelper. This is
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 687900 749826
Bug #687900 [debian-policy] document multiarch
Bug #749826 [debian-policy] debian-policy: [multiarch] please document the use
of Multi-Arch field in debian/control
842059 was blocked by: 687900
842059 was not blocking any
Your message dated Thu, 3 Aug 2017 15:48:59 -0400
with message-id <20170803194858.mbl7kjh3shsyz...@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#291148: 'status' option should be required of init.d
scripts
has caused the Debian Bug report #291148,
regarding status action for init.d scripts
to be
Your message dated Thu, 3 Aug 2017 15:35:46 -0400
with message-id <20170803193546.nsi6p5iecds2w...@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#54138: pre-removal scripts fail when /etc/init.d/*
stop fails
has caused the Debian Bug report #54138,
regarding pre-removal scripts fail when /etc/init
On 08/03/2017 08:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
>> Do the MIA team also track MIA teams?
>
>> My concern is that packages without maintainers may go unnoticed when
>> none of its previously active maintainers were tracked individually.
>
>> For such detection of abando
Tobias Frost writes:
> Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have
> retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a
> lot "team maintained" packages where the team did not recognize that the
> (sole) Uploader wasn't there anymore and the packages wer
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 835520 + pending
Bug #835520 [debian-policy] Policy 9.3.1 is inaccurate to the point of being
harmful
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
835520: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Do the MIA team also track MIA teams?
> My concern is that packages without maintainers may go unnoticed when
> none of its previously active maintainers were tracked individually.
> For such detection of abandonment we need not track _all_ active
> maintainers, but
Hello,
I just pushed commits fixing #835520; I am currently working on the
upgrading checklist entry.
These commits entirely delete some sections. Do we need to update
references, or is it okay to have the old numbers in section id fields,
with docbook renumbering the sections in the output form
Quoting Russ Allbery (2017-08-03 11:41:12)
> Bill Allombert writes:
>
> > The patch also remove the requirement to list individual email of the
> > maintainers. That is what I am objecting to.
>
> Oh, okay, I see that, but I'm not sure why. What is the purpose of
> listing those email addresses
Sean Whitton writes:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>> P.S. Just in case this is an oversight, rather than an intentional
>> change:
>>
>> Shouldn't "desktop entry" and "Debian menu entry" be somehow
>> emphasised, to make it clear that there is a reference b
Am Donnerstag, den 03.08.2017, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> Hello Tobias,
>
> Thank you for writing about this bug from the MIA team's perspective,
> which is very relevant to resolving this.
>
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:44:36AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Some remarks / questions I d
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> P.S. Just in case this is an oversight, rather than an intentional
> change:
>
> Shouldn't "desktop entry" and "Debian menu entry" be somehow
> emphasised, to make it clear that there is a reference back to the
> earlier definit
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached
> the diff to which my second applies.
>
> The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use
> debhelper. This is a first for policy,
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> You appear to have a singular/plural mismatch with:
>
> installs a FreeDesktop desktop entries
>
> I guess that should instead be:
>
> installs FreeDesktop desktop entries
>
> (or perhaps it should be singular throughout, I'm n
Hello Tobias,
Thank you for writing about this bug from the MIA team's perspective,
which is very relevant to resolving this.
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:44:36AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Some remarks / questions I do not see adressed:
> - If you have not a name on some task human nature tends
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy.
>
> This would not be "a purely informative change".
>
> Your suggested wording has the potential to create a HUGE amount of tensions.
You're right. After s
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached
> the diff to which my second applies.
>
> The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use
> debhelper. This is a first for policy, which up to
Hi Sean,
Sean Whitton writes:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello tech-ctte,
>
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:53:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> So yes, point 2 corresponds to your:
>> > - delete that paragraph
>> > - add a new paragraph saying "if there is a desktop file, there should
>
Bill Allombert writes:
> The patch also remove the requirement to list individual email of the
> maintainers. That is what I am objecting to.
Oh, okay, I see that, but I'm not sure why. What is the purpose of
listing those email addresses that you want to preserve?
> When a team is reduced to
gregor herrmann writes:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:55:30 -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> I've spoken to h01ger and gregoa IRL and they say that they missed the
>> magic word "should" which is what makes debhelper required by these
>> patches. So I'm seeking seconds for the following replacement for
Hi Sean,
On Do 03 Aug 2017 17:35:59 CEST, Sean Whitton wrote:
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello Santiago, Mike,
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Yes, indeed!
Great, I'm happy we figured that out.
I believe that my previous patch does indeed answer the concern you
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 +patch
Bug #835451 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Building as root should be
discouraged
Added tag(s) patch.
--
835451: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=835451
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello Santiago, Mike,
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Yes, indeed!
Great, I'm happy we figured that out.
I believe that my previous patch does indeed answer the concern you've
raised. So once again, I'm seeking seconds for that patch.
On
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 835520 + patch
Bug #835520 [debian-policy] Policy 9.3.1 is inaccurate to the point of being
harmful
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #835520 to the same tags previously set
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you ne
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello tech-ctte,
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:53:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> So yes, point 2 corresponds to your:
> > - delete that paragraph
> > - add a new paragraph saying "if there is a desktop file, there should
> > be no menu file"
> [...]
> That said, n
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 +patch
Bug #839172 [debian-policy] TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not
reflected yet
Added tag(s) patch.
--
839172: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839172
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
HI Sean,
On Do 03 Aug 2017 17:06:19 CEST, Sean Whitton wrote:
Hello Russ,
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 11:54:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I like solution (a), honestly. I think we could just add backslash as an
escape character that escapes anything other than a newline and have the
problem b
Hello Russ,
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 11:54:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I like solution (a), honestly. I think we could just add backslash as an
> escape character that escapes anything other than a newline and have the
> problem basically go away. It would require a new version of the spec,
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:55:30 -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I've spoken to h01ger and gregoa IRL and they say that they missed the
> magic word "should" which is what makes debhelper required by these
> patches. So I'm seeking seconds for the following replacement for
> Andreas' 5th and 8th patches
Hello,
I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached
the diff to which my second applies.
The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use
debhelper. This is a first for policy, which up to now only comments
that using debhelper is "easiest".
I've spoke
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:41:07PM -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> >
> > So yes at any time they are a number of active, hard-working team, but there
> > also a larger number of phantom team that used to be active, but whose
> > packages are still maintained in Debian. It is important they carry som
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:30:11PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Bill Allombert writes:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Bill Allombert writes:
> > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >
> > >> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
>...
> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
> packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphaned
> properly, with their maintainer field set to the QA team. This is
> already current best p
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> >> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
> >> packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphan
50 matches
Mail list logo
