Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 776413 by 776557
Bug #776413 [ed] Policy violation: ed priority "optional", should be "important"
776413 was not blocked by any bugs.
776413 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 776413: 452393 and 776557
> thanks
Stopping proc
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:36:19 -0700
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy debian-policy-ja
Architecture: source
Version: 4.2.1.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors
Changed-By: S
debian-policy_4.2.1.3_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
debian-policy_4.2.1.3.dsc
debian-policy_4.2.1.3.tar.xz
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Your message dated Sat, 20 Oct 2018 19:49:07 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#906910: fixed in debian-policy 4.2.1.3
has caused the Debian Bug report #906910,
regarding debian-policy: Link to "Debian Installer internals manual" on Alioth
is now broken
to be marked as done.
This means t
Hello,
On Sat 20 Oct 2018 at 08:09PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I haven't counted them, but to me it feels like there is no consensus at
> all. Even one of the proposed (smvc) said that he is happier to see
> pbuilder fix /etc/hosts than having netbase. And with the presence of
> people bei
Hello Lev,
On Tue 16 Oct 2018 at 12:56PM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote:
> as suggested by Chris Lamb [suggestion], I'd like to request your input
> on #776413. It is concerned with the priority of the ed package. There
> are two conflicting requests. Some users request ed to have priority
> "optional
Dear Ian,
On Tue 16 Oct 2018 at 11:49AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This makes it sound theoretical, or a question of breaking people's
> `finger macros'. That is indeed annoying. But there is a much more
> serious practical point, which Paul Hardy touches on.
>
> There are still situations, ev
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 01:47AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Which is a good argument for them not being in /etc.
> Do we need to block this Policy change on moving these files out of
> /etc? Whether or not we need to block the Polic
Hello,
On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 10:28AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> One part of this section that seems valuable to rescue is:
>
> If you have an LSB (or "sysvinit") init script /etc/init.d/foo, and
> systemd unit(s) that are intended to be used instead of the LSB init
> script on systemd-booted
Hello,
On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 01:47AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Which is a good argument for them not being in /etc.
Do we need to block this Policy change on moving these files out of
/etc? Whether or not we need to block the Policy change on that seems
to be the main point of disagreement
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 01:47AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Which is a good argument for them not being in /etc.
>
> Do we need to block this Policy change on moving these files out of
> /etc?
No, certainly not; that's unrelated.
Processing control commands:
> block -1 by 905453
Bug #833169 [dpkg-dev-el] dpkg-dev-el: debian/NEWS is loaded in
debian-changelog-mode, which encourages lintian debian-news-entry-uses-asterisk
complaints
833169 was not blocked by any bugs.
833169 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s)
12 matches
Mail list logo
