control: tag -1 +pending
Hello Nicholas,
On Fri 29 Nov 2019 at 01:26PM -05, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> At any rate, I've submitted an update MR here (see previous email for
> extended rationale):
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/sten-guest/policy/merge_requests/3
Thank you for preparing a patch.
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 +pending
Bug #944325 [debian-policy] please fix this unclear and obtuse phrasing in §7.8
(suggestion provided)
Added tag(s) pending.
--
944325: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944325
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
Hi Sean,
Sean Whitton writes:
> Hello Nicholas,
>
> I am not sure what is going on with your (1), (2) and (3). Perhaps you
> could propose your change in the form of a patch.
>
Those numbers refer to annotations in the quoted portion. IIRC you're
also using notmuch mode, so
[ x more citati
Hello Nicholas,
I am not sure what is going on with your (1), (2) and (3). Perhaps you
could propose your change in the form of a patch.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Sean Whitton writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 10:29AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> How about:
>>
>> [1] This field should only be used when there are license or DFSG
>> requirements to retain the referenced source package. [2] It should not
>> be added solely as a way to l
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:01:21 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 10:29AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > This field should only be used when there are license or DFSG
> > requirements to retain the referenced source package. It should not
> > be added so
Hello,
On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 10:29AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> How about:
>
> This field should only be used when there are license or DFSG
> requirements to retain the referenced source package. It should not
> be added solely as a way to locate packages that need to be rebuilt
>
Sean Whitton writes:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> index 140fdf1..8e4d98a 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> @@ -661,11 +661,10 @@ field in its control file:
> Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (
Hello Nicholas,
On Fri 08 Nov 2019 at 03:09PM -05, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> You're welcome :-) Done!
> https://salsa.debian.org/sten-guest/policy/merge_requests/2
Hmm, this patch isn't what you proposed in your previous mail:
diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationsh
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:53:31AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 07 Nov 2019 at 04:51PM -05, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > I suggest replacing the whole sentence with "The purpose of this field
> > is exclusively for cases where a package's license, or when DFSG
> > requirements, necessita
Hello,
On Thu 07 Nov 2019 at 04:51PM -05, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> The full sentence in question is "This field should not be added
> solely for purposes other than satisfying license or DFSG requirements
> to provide full source code".
>
> "solely for purposes other than satisfying" is the pr
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.1
Severity: normal
The full sentence in question is "This field should not be added
solely for purposes other than satisfying license or DFSG requirements
to provide full source code".
"solely for purposes other than satisfying" is the problematic
constructio
12 matches
Mail list logo
