Russ Allbery writes:
> I like this general approach. Thank you! I played with a bit and came
> up with the following. This retains a Policy should only for the
> correct setting of the Maintainer field for an orphaned package and
> remains silent on when packages are orphaned.
This change has
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I like this general approach. Thank you! I played with a bit and came up
> with the following. This retains a Policy should only for the correct
> setting of the Maintainer field for an orphaned package and remains silent
> on when packages are orphaned
Dear Russ,
thanks for your preseverance. I second your patch below.
-- Charles
Le Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 02:52:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index e5134ed..d6c63f6 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -907,23 +907,40 @@
>
>
Charles Plessy writes:
> Still not completely: a sentence like “The maintainer then becomes
> Debian QA Group” gives a feeling of automation that does not match
> reality: somebody has to do the work, and we do not have bots to replace
> humans for this task.
> How about moving in the footnote t
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So, the question here is not really about whether or not "should" is
> appropriate but whether Policy is the right place to say "should" about
> this since it's a procedural issue more than a package content issue.
Right - it's not th
Le Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Charles and Steve, you're the two who objected to or were avoiding the
> "should" language. Does this persuade you?
Still not completely: a sentence like “The maintainer then becomes Debian
QA Group” gives a feeling of automati
Russ Allbery writes:
> Hm, but actually, isn't the magic of "should" appropriate here? If a
> package is unmaintained but not orphaned, that *is* a bug, which is what
> "should" means. Admittedly, Policy normally only governs the contents
> of packages and not procedural issues in Debian like o
Hi,
On 13/07/10 04:15, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
>> Moving this out of a footnote into the body of policy would probably make
>> this hang together better. Perhaps:
>
>> If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to maintain a
>> package, it will be or
Charles Plessy writes:
> I liked the original wording, that implied that if a package is not
> maintained, or if its maintainer has given up, then it is orphaned,
> regardless how this is documented in the source package.
The concern that a couple of people had was that they felt it implied the
> #459868 Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list
> Need to resolve whether it's appropriate to say that an unmaintained
> package "should" be orphaned.
Hello everybody,
In my impression, the Policy is about how packages should be, and the Developers
Reference is about what pa
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:02:43AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to
>>> + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to the
>>> + procedure des
Hi,
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:02:43AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to
> > > + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:02:43AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to
> > + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to the
> > + procedure described in the Debian Develo
Hi,
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to
> + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to the
> + procedure described in the Debian Developer's Reference
> + (see ). The maintainer then
"It wil
Steve Langasek writes:
> Moving this out of a footnote into the body of policy would probably make
> this hang together better. Perhaps:
> If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to maintain a
> package, it will be orphaned according to the procedure described in the
>
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:01:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every
> > package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're
> > saying that the package needs one, not just the software.
> Here's a patch which im
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every
> > package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're
> > saying that the package needs one, not just the software.
>
> Here's a patch
Le Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:01:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every
> > package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're
> > saying that the package needs one, not just the softwa
Russ Allbery writes:
> Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every
> package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're
> saying that the package needs one, not just the software.
Here's a patch which implements that. Objections or seconds?
diff --
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Maybe that would be best. The concern that I had is that it wouldn't be
>> clear that a package just being maintained upstream isn't sufficient;
>> someone needs to be responsible for the package as it exists in Debian.
> Part of my difficulty here i
Russ Allbery writes:
> Maybe that would be best. The concern that I had is that it wouldn't
> be clear that a package just being maintained upstream isn't
> sufficient; someone needs to be responsible for the package as it
> exists in Debian.
Part of my difficulty here is the lack of a succint t
Ben Finney writes:
> What is it, then, that distinguishes conformant packages from packages
> that simply have a ‘debian/’ directory? If the result is a working
> package that otherwise conforms, what more is needed, exactly?
> In other words, why is it not enough to simply say:
> Every pac
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:11:27PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
> > member of the Debian project.
Thank you for pointing out the flaws in this formulation.
>
> I think that ‘Every package must have
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Maybe "maintainer in Debian"? Or "maintainer for Debian"?
> Given that “Debian” is an operating system, that doesn't seem like an
> improvement in clarity.
> How about:
> Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
> mem
Le Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 07:57:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Maybe "maintainer in Debian"? Or "maintainer for Debian"?
Le Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:11:27PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
>
> How about:
>
> Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
> member of th
Russ Allbery writes:
> Maybe "maintainer in Debian"? Or "maintainer for Debian"?
Given that “Debian” is an operating system, that doesn't seem like an
improvement in clarity.
How about:
Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
member of the Debian project.
--
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 01:04:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> + Every package must have a Debian maintainer.
> Hello everybody,
> given the recent discussion on debian-project, how about taking the
> opportunity of this bug to disambiguate this sentence as we
Le Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 01:04:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> + Every package must have a Debian maintainer.
Hello everybody,
given the recent discussion on debian-project, how about taking the opportunity
of this bug to disambiguate this sentence as well:
‘Every package must have a m
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as
> a Maintainer: address.
[...]
> I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF:
> ---+++---
> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
> be configured to accept m
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:36:24PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 28/01/08 at 14:00 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:55:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 27/01/08 at 23:00 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > On Fri,
On 28/01/08 at 14:00 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:55:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 27/01/08 at 23:00 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Bill Allo
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:55:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 27/01/08 at 23:00 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:31:32AM +
On 27/01/08 at 23:00 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:31:32AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > In the ruby-extras team, we use:
> > > > Maintainer: the
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:58:10PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > It does ? How a mailing list can upload package ? It seems you are using
> > > > a functional field for documentation purpose.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, Uploaders has no "function" ex
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 03:10:40PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:58:10PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > > It does ? How a mailing list can upload package ? It seems you are
> > > > > using
> > > > > a functional fiel
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:58:10PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > It does ? How a mailing list can upload package ? It seems you are using
> > > > a functional field for documentation purpose.
> > > I'm sorry, Uploaders has no "function" except w
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > It does ? How a mailing list can upload package ? It seems you are using
> > > a functional field for documentation purpose.
> >
> > I'm sorry, Uploaders has no "function" except when combined with
> > DM-Upload-Allowed. One can perfectly upload a p
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:31:32AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > In the ruby-extras team, we use:
> > > Maintainer: the team member "mainly" responsible for the package
> > > Uploa
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:45:39PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> It does ? How a mailing list can upload package ? It seems you are using
> a functional field for documentation purpose.
Mailing lists are often role lists for a team. Teams are made up of people.
People can upload packages. This sh
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sorry, Uploaders has no "function" except when combined with
> DM-Upload-Allowed. One can perfectly upload a package without being in
> the Uploaders in the default case.
I agree in general, although I will note that Uploaders is also used by
the
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:31:32AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > In the ruby-extras team, we use:
> > Maintainer: the team member "mainly" responsible for the package
> > Uploaders: the team mailing list, and the other team members who keep a
> > look
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:31:32AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/01/08 at 23:22 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > >> +++---+++
> > >> If the Maintainer: field points to a mailing list then the Uploader:
> > >> field has to contain at least one human.
> > >> ---+++---
> > > This is a good requi
On 24/01/08 at 23:22 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> +++---+++
> >> If the Maintainer: field points to a mailing list then the Uploader:
> >> field has to contain at least one human.
> >> ---+++---
> > This is a good requirement, I think. (Actually, I would have expected
> > Uploader to contain o
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11274 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>>> ---+++---
>>> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
>>> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
>>> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail
On 11274 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> ---+++---
>> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
>> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
>> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the
>> BTS, all mails f
On 11274 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> ---+++---
>> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
>> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
>> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the
>> BTS, all mails fro
Hi,
> I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF:
>
> ---+++---
> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the
> BT
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer:
when using a mailing list"):
> ---+++---
> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
> send aut
On 11260 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> ---+++---
>> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
>> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
>> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the
>> BTS, all mails
On Jan 10, 2008 8:38 AM, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't it make sense to accept all signed mails, or all mails signed
> by a DD? I don't know how hard it would be to implement in mailman.
Accepting all signed mail is usually a Good Thing (tm), yes. Even without
actually chec
On 09/01/08 at 09:21 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> ---+++---
> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the
> BTS, all mails
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi
>
> I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as
> a Maintainer: address. The current "3.3 The maintainer of a package"
> reads
> Additionally I would like:
>
> +++---+++
> If the Maintainer: fie
On 11259 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> ---+++---
>> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
>> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
>> send automated mails regarding the package. T
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF:
>
> ---+++---
> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
> send automated mails regarding the pack
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Hi
I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as
a Maintainer: address. The current "3.3 The maintainer of a package"
reads
------
Every package must have a Debian maintainer (the maintainer may be one
person or a group of pe
55 matches
Mail list logo
