On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:10:38AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> But surely there are lots of other such obsolete constructs and
> libraries; we really need a programmer's guide for such things rather
> than policy.
>
Manoj once volunteered to write a Debian programmer's guide :-)
(This was whe
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:10:38AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > But surely there are lots of other such obsolete constructs and
> > libraries; we really need a programmer's guide for such things rather
> > than policy.
> >
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:44:42PM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> Update to specify build-depends for perl. Current version is at
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bod/perl-policy/perl-policy.sgml
You've got loads of examples of things like ... . That's not valid sgml, is it?
Julian
--
=-=-
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:28:36AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:44:42PM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
>> Update to specify build-depends for perl. Current version is at
>>
>> http://people.debian.org/~bod/perl-policy/perl-policy.sgml
>
>You've got loads of examples of t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Okay, hopefully the final language change:
>
> Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
>
>Non-free programs with cryptographic program code must be stored
> on
>the "non-us" server because
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:15:09AM +0100, Arthur Korn wrote:
> Joey Hess schrieb:
> > Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 10:43:09AM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> > > > Probably it should be clearly stated in policy that the cron.*
> > > > scripts may be quiet if no errors are encounte
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:49:14PM +0100, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Ok, I know I am a bit late, but since I recently got my Debian
> developer status and this is exactly what I asked for in my mail on
> 2001-01-01, I second this.
> Are 2 seconds (this should be the 2. second on this phrasing if I
> h
* Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 07:29]:
> Good. How about something like "cron.* scripts should not produce any
> non-error output in general. An exception may be made if the
> intention of the script is to mail a status report to root."
Why specifically root? I could imagine situati
Removed shorttags. New version at:
http://people.debian.org/~bod/perl-policy/perl-policy.sgml
Regards,
--
Brendan O'Deabod@compusol.com.au
Compusol Pty. Limited (NSW, Australia) +61 2 9810 3633
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:49:34AM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 07:29]:
> > Good. How about something like "cron.* scripts should not produce any
> > non-error output in general. An exception may be made if the
> > intention of the script is to mail a st
Julian Gilbey (2001-02-20 16:23:10 +) :
> This is because stdout gets mailed to root by cron.
...unless otherwise specified:
[...]
In addition to LOGNAME, HOME, and SHELL, cron(8) will look
at MAILTO if it has any reason to send mail as a result of
running commands in
Roland Mas schrieb:
> Julian Gilbey (2001-02-20 16:23:10 +) :
>
> > This is because stdout gets mailed to root by cron.
>
> ...unless otherwise specified:
So what about:
cron.* scripts should not produce any non-error output in
general. An exception may be made if the intention of th
* Arthur Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 09:35]:
> So what about:
>
>cron.* scripts should not produce any non-error output in
>general. An exception may be made if the intention of the
>script is to mail a status report to the administrator.
I like this, though the "should not use
Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release are
ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release are
> ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
Then I'll adopt all the packages that don't have a maintainer and send
RFAs for them (like I did with several of the packag
* Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 10:39]:
> Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release are
> ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
In taking a quick list at the packages my machine knows about, it sure
appears that Debian could still be useful i
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> > Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release
> > are
> > ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
This isn't such a bad idea.
>
> Then I'll adopt
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry writes:
> Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release are
> ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
How about asking the QA team? I think that "packages maintained by the
QA team" is a poor criterion for getting software. They shouldn't
delay
Matthew Vernon schrieb:
> Maybe the QA team should be allowed to decide to prune things?
The QA team is the maintainer of these packages, and thus can
request theyer removal just as every other maintainer can
(though usually uninteresting stuff is orphaned by normal
maintainers).
Posting an ITR (
Hi.
Yes, I have a comment :)
I think the only packages that should be released are those without
bugs.
-Jim
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release
> > > are
> > > ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:57:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > >
> > > Then I'll adopt all the packages that don't have a maintainer
So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
/usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check
the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in 2 years. It
is standards version 2.3.0.1, ICK!
So, perhaps we should drop
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:34:33PM +0100, Arthur Korn wrote:
> So what about:
>
>cron.* scripts should not produce any non-error output in
>general. An exception may be made if the intention of the
>script is to mail a status report to the administrator.
>
> Though I feel that the ex
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:57:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Then I'l
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>...
> example: saml
> There is 7 open bugs on it (1 serious, 6 normal, 1 wishlist)
> Standards-Version: 2.3.0.1
> upstream last touched it approximately /four/ years ago.
>...
I forgot to say about this example:
Ian Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intends to
* Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010220 12:49]:
> So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not
> at least 3.x.x, it gets held.
I second this.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Sean!
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at least
> 3.x.x, it gets held.
make it so
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check
> the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in 2 years.
> It
> is
On 20-Feb-2001 Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 10:39]:
>> Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release
>> are
>> ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
>
> In taking a quick list at the packages my machine knows about, it su
On 20-Feb-2001 Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry writes:
> > Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release
> are
> > ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
>
> How about asking the QA team? I think that "packages maintained by the
> QA team" is a poor
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 13:52]:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at
> > least
> > 3.x.x, it gets held.
> And just out of curiosity: apt has standards version 2.4.1
That is interesting. Of
>
> And more serious: If you want to force the upgrade of the standards
> version you must file 579 RC bugs on these packages.
>
sounds like a plan to me. Many of these are either:
a) horribly out of date
b) simply forgot to change the number
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adrian> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
Adrian> I'm willing to spend some time on the packages that are
Adrian> orphaned, it doesn't matter if they are officially
Adrian> maintained by QA or by me. Has anyone a good
* Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010220 17:04]:
> What you need to realize (and probably do) is that you have finite
> time and that if after a while you no longer have time to maintain the
...
> are willing to remove the packages if you fail to find someone who can
> take ca
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010220 17:04]:
> > What you need to realize (and probably do) is that you have finite
> > time and that if after a while you no longer have time to maintain the
> ...
> > are willing
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
>* Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 07:29]:
>> Good. How about something like "cron.* scripts should not produce any
>> non-error output in general. An exception may be made if the
>> intention of the script is to mail a status report to root."
>
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:20:36PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:57:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > I remember that "silo" was orphaned for several months before someone
> > > adopted it...
> >
> > I'm not talking about se
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>...
> > I'm willing to spend some time on the packages that are orphaned, it
> > doesn't matter if they are officially maintained by QA or by me. Has
> > anyone a good reason why it's bad when I take care of these packages
> > instead of seeing them getting
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010220 12:49]:
> > So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not
> > at least 3.x.x, it gets held.
>
> I second this.
So do I. 2.x doesn'
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:44:59PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> > I'm not saying you don't have a right to upload -qa packages or any
> > such thing. What I don't understand is if you really think they're
> > useful, why you don't adopt them outright (no, no
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:49:34PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check
> the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in
On 20-Feb-2001 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I
> check
> the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in 2 years.
> It
> is stan
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 at 12:49:34 -0800 (PST), Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I
> cd'ed to /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check the changelog and this binary-any
> package has not been uploade
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:49:34PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check
> the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:30:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Shaleh, I'm not sure I got around to filing a bug against lintian about this,
> but it'd be nice if lintian differentiated between MUST/SHOULD/MAY violations
> in its output. Something like:
>
> E!: non-FHS-directory
Yes, real
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:30:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> I'd encourage the lintian maintainer ( :) ) to automatically file "old
> standards version" bugs about such packages (of normal/minor/wishlist
> severity); and I'd definitely encourage the lintian maintainer to file
> serious bugs
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:27:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I file any bugs I detect, once I get lintian running on the archive, old
> packages beware (-:
>
> A package of 2.x policy behaves in a way different than current packages.
>
> They lack a /usr/share/doc, their manpages are no
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:39:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > E!: non-FHS-directory
> > > E-: missing-manpage
> > > E?: standards-version-uses-4-digits-not-3
> > when I rewrite lintian (started yesterday) the lintian messages will match
> > policy:
> > Error (E:) -- violate a MUST
>
49 matches
Mail list logo
