Your message dated Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:28:18 -0500
with message-id
and subject line
has caused the Debian Bug report #976402,
regarding Proposed official virtual packages - todo and todo.txt
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Update. No todo, and suggest the following for todo.txt text:
command-line task management utility compatible with todo.txt CLI (
http://todotxt.org)
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 2:57 PM Dave Steele wrote:
> Please update the Authoritative List of Virtual Package Names to
> include "todo" and "to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 976402
Bug #976402 {Done: Dave Steele } [debian-policy] Proposed
official virtual packages - todo and todo.txt
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared, and you may need to
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 06:30:12PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I disagree. The two packages provide the same functionality - the ability
> > to add, remove, modify and display todo lists. Alternatives routinely offer
> > different option sets and commands.
>
> /usr/bin/todo is not registered
Hello,
On Mon 14 Dec 2020 at 09:35AM -05, Dave Steele wrote:
> Update. No todo, and suggest the following for todo.txt text:
>
> command-line task management utility compatible with todo.txt CLI (
> http://todotxt.org)
Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
secondi
control: tag -1 + moreinfo
Hello David,
On Fri 04 Dec 2020 at 12:15PM -05, David Steele wrote:
> I'd like to propose adding the virtual packages "todo" and "todo.txt" to
> the authoritative list of virtual package names. I'm submitting this per
> Policy section 3.6 and the preamble to the [autho
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + moreinfo
Bug #976402 [debian-policy] Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
976402: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Hello Sam,
On Tue 01 Dec 2020 at 08:07AM -05, Sam Hartman wrote:
> * Sean would prefer that you not be able to collapse years. He hasn't
> said whether his objection is strong enough to try and block
> consensus.
My initial comments were motivated by the very same concerns as Russ:
On Sat
Hello,
On Mon 30 Nov 2020 at 07:49PM +01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, Oxan van Leeuwen wrote:
>> Source: debian-policy
>> Version: 4.5.1.0
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Currently Policy requires that init.d scripts, and only init.d scripts, don't
>> fail if the c
Hello Ansgar,
On Tue 24 Nov 2020 at 01:37PM +01, Ansgar wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.5.1.0
> Severity: normal
>
> After a discussion in #-devel today I reviewed packages using other
> choices of "Rules-Requires-Root" than "no" and "binary-targets". The
> query [1] found two uses:
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + patch
Bug #976402 [debian-policy] Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
Added tag(s) patch.
--
976402: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
control: tag -1 + patch
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:42 PM Sean Whitton
wrote:
>
> Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
> seconding? See README.md in policy.git for more info.
>
> --
> Sean Whitton
>
https://salsa.debian.org/steele/policy/-/tree/bug976402-steele
d
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sean Whitton
wrote:
>
>
> Putting aside the use of the alternatives system, why is a virtual
> package wanted? When would it be useful to be able to declare a
> dependency and have it satisfied by one of these implementations?
>
>
As an example, a future rev of an
13 matches
Mail list logo
