Hello localisation teams,
Here is an except from README.md in the Debian Policy repository:
### Translations
We have recently begun accepting translations for the Policy Manual.
Please follow the procedures of the localisation team for the
language into which you wish to translat
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes ("Re: permit access to apt repositories during
> builds"):
>> My feeling is that this should be an outside-policy carveout, since it
>> makes many applications (e.g., analyzing the build graph, especially
>> when needed for bootstrapping) no longer poss
Hello,
I created a new repo for accepting translations, writeable by all DDs:
https://salsa.debian.org/dbnpolicy/policy-l10n-merge-requests-here
I've added a note to README.md that we should pull from that repo before
releasing.
It is a separate repo because:
- we don't want merge request
Jonathan Nieder writes ("Re: permit access to apt repositories during builds"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > See
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813471#126
> > for a more extended rationale for permitting access to sources
> > as well as binaries.
>
> My feeling is that this sh
Hi,
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Apropos of discussion in #813471:
>
> Paul writes:
>> In addition, d-i relies on access to the apt repo for the system.
>> I can imagine other uses of that, so I added a carve-out for that.
>
> In general I think this should be done by saying that packages may
> access th
Ian Jackson writes:
> Apropos of discussion in #813471:
> Paul writes:
>> In addition, d-i relies on access to the apt repo for the system.
>> I can imagine other uses of that, so I added a carve-out for that.
>
> In general I think this should be done by saying that packages may
> access the apt r
Sean Whitton writes ("Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to build-essential"):
> Ian also thinks that package builds should be able to access the
> information normally contained in /etc/protocols and /etc/services by
> means of the C standard library.
Yes.
> Could you say more about why this i
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.2.0.1
Tags: patch
Apropos of discussion in #813471:
Paul writes:
> In addition, d-i relies on access to the apt repo for the system.
> I can imagine other uses of that, so I added a carve-out for that.
In general I think this should be done by saying that packag
Hello,
Three very useful suggestions:
1) Seconding would be much easier with word diffs. Either a convention
to include in "seeking seconds" posts a reference to a git branch,
and a sample command to fetch and get a word diff, or a script to
post word diffs to the bugs. (Ralf)
2) The
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 09:44:35AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It might unspoil your day a bit to know that dh-sysuser is a standalone
> package, not part of debhelper, so there's no evidence that the debhelper
> maintainers have changed their mind on this without getting in touch with
> you.
It
Marc Haber writes:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 07:37:46PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> dh-sysuser encapsulates maintainer script code into a single command,
>> although imperative rather than declarative. It uses useradd directly,
>> so it might be NIHing adduser(8).
> Augh!
> Seeing this sadd
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 07:37:46PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> dh-sysuser encapsulates maintainer script code into a single command,
> although imperative rather than declarative. It uses useradd directly,
> so it might be NIHing adduser(8).
Augh!
Seeing this saddens me deply.
The history is
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 08:00:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As Guillem mentioned, I as a Debian user and system administrator would
> dearly like to be able to configure Debian to delete created users when
> the package is purged. I understand the reasons why we don't think this
> is safe to d
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 19:31:54 +0800
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy debian-policy-ja
Architecture: all source
Version: 4.2.0.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors
Changed-B
binary:debian-policy-ja is NEW.
binary:debian-policy-ja is NEW.
Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action
from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good
OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient.
Packages are ro
debian-policy_4.2.0.1_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
debian-policy_4.2.0.1.dsc
debian-policy_4.2.0.1.tar.xz
debian-policy-ja_4.2.0.1_all.deb
debian-policy_4.2.0.1_all.deb
debian-policy_4.2.0.1_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue d
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:43:46PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I think we have stronger guarantees that discussions in the BTS will
> remain available for as long as Debian exists than we do with salsa, and
> so am against moving any discussions to salsa because such records are
> important for ou
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 12:31:52PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> As has been mentioned before, you should not need to bump the version
> if you don't use the new format; if you do, you have aleady changed
> the file anyway and might as well change the version digit.
exactly.
I'm kinda surprised
18 matches
Mail list logo
