Le Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:05:23AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > package maintenance is not
> > something that I believe it's in the purview of the DPL to delegate.
>
> I have to agree with this part. I think this is a powe
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> package maintenance is not
> something that I believe it's in the purview of the DPL to delegate.
I have to agree with this part. I think this is a power that
belongs to the developers.
I think that in such delegation the polic
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:30:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the
> > policy editors. The power to decide the contents of the debian-policy
> > package follows from their status as package maintainer
On 09/02/14 at 12:21 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the policy
> > editors.
>
> Can I suggest you start a GR about if you think the DPL is maing
> decisions he ca
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the policy
> editors.
Can I suggest you start a GR about if you think the DPL is maing
decisions he can not make?
I also suggest you re-read Neil's text on the su
Le Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 06:15:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
>
> I would have to disagree with that. The recent delegation among
> other things says "defines [...] technical requirements that all
> packages must satisfy". What the ctte here wants to do is set
> policy about having a Depends o
Steve Langasek writes:
> I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the
> policy editors. The power to decide the contents of the debian-policy
> package follows from their status as package maintainers; package
> maintenance is not something that I believe it's in the pur
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 06:15:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
> > >
> > > > Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency o
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
> >
> > > Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
> > > which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. Thi
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
>
> > Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
> > which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. This was allowed by the
> > Debian Policy of the time as well as by the De
11 matches
Mail list logo
