Bug#591791: Bug#602511: Fwd: Re: upstart support for nodm

All I know is you fellows broke nodm rather royally for me. I use nodm on desktops and laptops, with Debian flavor: deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian experimental main contrib non-free deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free I did aptitude forbid-version nodm and will

Bug#604990: clarify man page dates policy

> "H" == Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes: H> There is no need. This is documented in man-pages(7). Ah, maybe the policy doc should just mention "See also man-pages(7)". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac

Bug#604990: clarify man page dates policy

> "RA" == Russ Allbery writes: RA> No, I don't believe that it should. I don't think this is something that RA> we need to make technical Policy about. RA> I'll leave this bug open for a bit before closing in case someone else RA> disagrees. Well then please add in the manual that Debian o

Bug#604990: clarify man page dates policy

X-debbugs-Cc: man...@packages.debian.org, rad...@cox.net Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.1.0 Severity: wishlist File: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch-docs.html The Debian Policy Manual should state what the preferred date on manual pages should be, or wishes upstream would make it.

Bug#250102: closed by Manoj Srivastava (It is premature to propose this as a policy)

Well, I hope this need is remembered somewhere on the great TODO list in the sky... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

easing hunting down transitional packages

retitle 486754 standardize transitional package tags thanks All I know is after a while one accrues lots of transitional packages, with no systematic way of identifying them for possible removal, other than some grep-status(1) guesses. I don't know however the proper package for this wishlist. Tha

Bug#486754: dummy packages often cannot be safely removed as fast as they say

Also standardize dummy package Descriptions' wording via templates or recommendations. E.g., often they say "this is a dummy package and can safely be removed", when in fact they should also say "after ... transition is complete" (which by the way the end user doesn't know how to determine), else

Bug#486754: standardize dummy package tags

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.0.1 Severity: wishlist There ought to be a policy about how the package description of dummy transitional packages is to be written. E.g., mandating a Tag "dummy::transitional"(?) or something (also could differentiate different kinds of dummies.) That way user