Here is an updated diff that documents the most well-understood version
conventions in the Debian archive. More could certainly be added; this is
just a first start that addresses this specific bug.
This revised patch is less aggressive about defining native packages to
only mean packages with no
Paul Hardy writes:
> I recently formatted the Unicode Data license for the d/copyright file
> of a Debian package that I created. I thought I would offer it to
> Debian if you are interested. You probably do not want the Copyright
> stanza, and you might not want the Comment stanza, but I erred
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 '
Russ Allbery writes:
> 2. Document editor and recommend everyone implement it properly. Since
>we're going to allow packages to depend on editor, I think providing
>it would need to be a should, so that's going to be a lot of buggy
>(but not RC-buggy) editor packages. But it would g
Ian Jackson writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.4.0.1
> Many packages' .dscs contain something like this:
> Source: bustle
> Version: 0.7.4-1
> Vcs-Git: https://salsa.debian.org/haskell-team/DHG_packages.git [p/bustle]
> The semantics do not appearr to be documented in policy.
Russ Allbery writes:
> In attempting to revise recent GRs to use the same terminology as
> Policy, I got frustrated again by the lack of precision of our current
> language. This is an attempt to make a minor improvement. It doesn't
> go all the way to using all-caps terms the way that RFC 2119
6 matches
Mail list logo
