Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#901160: Updating the description of the
Standards-Version field"):
> A sentence that we can't readily understand should probably be removed
> from Policy. So I propose doing that (small modification to the patch I
> posted for seconds, and al
Hello,
On Sun, Jun 10 2018, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Maybe this sentence should be removed from here, and added to the
>> last paragraph ("A very old ...") somewhere. Or maybe, even,
>> removed. Do we in fact file bugs automatically ? I'm not aware of
>> us doing so.
>
> Just to check we're on t
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:16:07AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Here is the patch for seconding:
>
> > From 3bad0c91264c707ee163af93e45d3b53e5e4f880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Sean Whitton
> > Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 08:11:52 +
> > Subject: [PATCH] update description of usage of Standa
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:22:26PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Jun 10 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Seconded, but:
> >
> >> > +This information may be used to file bug reports automatically if
> >> > your +package becomes too much out of date.
> >
> > Maybe this sentence shou
Hello,
On Sun, Jun 10 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Seconded, but:
>
>> > +This information may be used to file bug reports automatically if
>> > your +package becomes too much out of date.
>
> Maybe this sentence should be removed from here, and added to the last
> paragraph ("A very old ...") some
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#901160: Updating the description of the
Standards-Version field"):
> ISTM that the status of the upgrading checklist is easier for package
> maintainers to understand if it continues to have no normative status at
> all. It's a pure con
Hello Ian,
On Sat, Jun 09 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I don't see a problem with this referral. The reason the upgrading
> checklist isn't normative is to avoid having to review the summaries
> contained in it in detail. As a *list of changes* it surely must be
> normative. But I don't mind you
Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#901160: Updating the description of the
Standards-Version field"):
> The upgrading checklist explicitly states that it does not have
> normative status, so a 'should not' requirement should not defer to it.
I don't see a problem with
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.4.1
Severity: normal
User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: normative discussion
Thank you for pointing out that Policy's description is out-of-date,
Ian, and for the patch. I agree that it captures the consensus we
established in that previous discu
9 matches
Mail list logo
