Hi Russ Allbery,
>> I know policy is not about mandating implementation details, but
>> maintainers do find the specific examples in ยง4.9.1 to be useful -- it
>> would be good if a practical pointer on how nodoc could be implemented
>> by the maintainer were included as part of this change. At the
Paul Wise writes:
> I am missing the justification for the last paragraph of Debian Policy
> section 2.5. I feel that it may have been due to a limitation of our
> tools in the past and that these days there are zero downsides to this
> situation (debootstrap/etc handle it fine) so we should prob
Hi Lucas!
# not what is desired by TC
Really? Has anyone talked to them?
I believe this was the last time BTS workflow was brought up on -ctte@:
https://lists.debian.org/20494.51776.384105.199...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
https://lists.debian.org/20542.8649.798752.781...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Jakub Wilk writes:
> Really? Has anyone talked to them?
> I believe this was the last time BTS workflow was brought up on -ctte@:
> https://lists.debian.org/20494.51776.384105.199...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> https://lists.debian.org/20542.8649.798752.781...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Yeah, I think
reopen 484805
thanks
On 31/08/14 at 10:20 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jakub Wilk writes:
>
> > Really? Has anyone talked to them?
>
> > I believe this was the last time BTS workflow was brought up on -ctte@:
> > https://lists.debian.org/20494.51776.384105.199...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > http
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 484805
Bug #484805 {Done: Lucas Nussbaum } [developers-reference]
developers-reference: please make clone to tech-ctte the default
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #484805 to the same values
previously set
> th
6 matches
Mail list logo
