On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 02:14:15PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers
> not universally applied"):
> > To me, the core message of the current text is that you should ensure
> > that bug reports which are not Debian-specific end up
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:29:52PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I’m trying to be constructive here, but in the end, I still
> think that this was something package maintainers (at least
> DDs) have read beforehand and signed up for, so there’s no
> room to complain now,
Good. Please subscribe t
Source: developers-reference
Severity: normal
"3.1.4. Coordination with upstream developers" says
"You have to forward these bug reports to the upstream developers so that they
can be fixed in a future upstream release."
That's not the current/best practice for a number of packages, either becau
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:04:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 07:29:28PM -0500, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I would like to propose the following extension to "5.6.23.", the
> > > "Homepage" header line:
> > >
> > > ---
> > > If no homepage exists, e.g. because
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:04:01AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi Russ, hi Sune,
>
> I'd like to second this request to reword the current section in the
> policy regarding menu files, suggesting fdo .desktop files as the
> recommended mechanism and make it clear that .menu files are only really
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:27:59AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff writes:
>
> > This should be a section below "5.10 Porting and being ported":
>
> > Marking non-free packages as auto-buildable
> > --
Package: developers-reference
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
This should be a section below "5.10 Porting and being ported":
Marking non-free packages as auto-buildable
---
By default packages from non-free are not built by the autobuilder
network (mostly be
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:06:02AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Are you proposing to make the ‘Homepage’ field mandatory?
No, it should still be optional.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 07:29:28PM -0500, Jonathan Yu wrote:
>
> Can you think of any other possible use cases for having "None" upstream?
Native packages which don't warrant a homepage or packages which are too
tiny to warrant a home page, e.g. fonts.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4.0
Severity: wishlist
I would like to propose the following extension to "5.6.23.", the
"Homepage" header line:
---
If no homepage exists, e.g. because the software is abandoned and
vanished off the net, "None" can be specified.
---
Cheers,
Moritz
--
I second Neil's proposal.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Chris Waters wrote:
> > We want to avoid packages shipping their own versions of libraries,
> > as then if a security problem or major bug is discovered in that
> > library, we have lots of packages to update, and there's no garuntee
> > we'll even know which packages it affects.
>
> I don't know
12 matches
Mail list logo
