On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:16:14PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:39:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Currently, aiui, lintian uses E: for problems that it's sure are mistakes,
> > and W: for problems that it's only guessing are mistakes. I think that
> > divisio
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> And more serious: If you want to force the upgrade of the standards
> version you must file 579 RC bugs on these packages.
I would be happy to do that to tell the truth, if it meant we got half
of them updated to current standards before the freeze.
(I had pretty good luck wi
Joey Hess wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > And more serious: If you want to force the upgrade of the standards
> > version you must file 579 RC bugs on these packages.
>
> I would be happy to do that to tell the truth, if it meant we got half
> of them updated to current standards before the freeze
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.
>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 01:31:30AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Reading the rest of the thread, I sense there's a consnsensus that it'd be
> ok to file such bugs if they weren't rc, at least. So 578 priority
> normal bugs coming right up unless someone tells me otherwise.
I'm sure you've got a better
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:07:01AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:27:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > Sure, but lacking /usr/share/doc is, aiui, a non-RC issue as it stands
> > (since there seems to be some sort of dead
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Sure, but lacking /usr/share/doc is, aiui, a non-RC issue as it stands
> > > (since there seems to be some sort of deadlock in working out what to do
> > > about it)...
> > In a message sent in this thread only a good hour before this mail you
> > sa
>>
>> no, it tries to do this based on 2.x level MUST/SHOULD and the authors
>> beliefs
>> of severity. Has nothing to do with the sureness of the test.
>
> When did this change, then? Christian and I designed it the way Anthony
> described it.
>
Gecko did some, new checks added between him a
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Error (E:) -- violate a MUST
> Warning (W:) -- violate a SHOULD
> XXX (?:) -- a MAY is not followed
There should be no Lintian messages regarding MAY items. If any
such thing is considered to warrant a Lintian Warning or Error
message
On 21-Feb-2001 Bob Hilliard wrote:
> "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Error (E:) -- violate a MUST
>> Warning (W:) -- violate a SHOULD
>> XXX (?:) -- a MAY is not followed
>
> There should be no Lintian messages regarding MAY items. If any
> such thing is conside
I can not find anything in the checklist about Build-Depends. I have been told
it was 3.2.x, is this accurate?
>> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can not find anything in the checklist about Build-Depends. I have
> been told it was 3.2.x, is this accurate?
3.1.0.0 according to the changelog.
--
Marcelo
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:45:02PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I can not find anything in the checklist about Build-Depends. I have
> > been told it was 3.2.x, is this accurate?
>
> 3.1.0.0 according to the changelog.
I might c
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Wed Feb 21 15:58:20 PST 2001
Modified files:
. : upgrading-checklist.html
Log message:
Clarified upgrading-checklist note about source dependencies
Your message dated Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:01:17 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line This is now solved
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility
Your message dated Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:03:19 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line This has been fixed
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility
Your message dated Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:18:54 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line This is now irrelevant
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibil
Your message dated Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:22:11 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line This isn't really a policy decision but the RM's decision
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The best check for the /usr/doc/foo -> /usr/share/doc/foo transition is to
> check for the standards version. If we want to finish this transition for
> woody someone has to:
> - file RC bugs for standards version < 3.0
> - later check
19 matches
Mail list logo
