Hi,
On Mon, 18 May 2020, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I'd like to update the copyright statements in d/changelog and and
> source/index.rst and bring them in sync as well. Thus I have prepared
> the following diff.
>
> I'd appreciate a quick review and possible corrections from you!
Fine for me.
Hi,
On Mon, 08 Apr 2019, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I am considering to working to convert dev-ref to rST+Sphinx this
> summer. I would like to start a discussion about doing that. The
> main things that I need to learn from this discussion are:
I just want to point out that contrary to the Debian
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon 27 Aug 2018 at 12:58PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Or you could have read dh_linktree's manual page and see that you can
> > use "replace" instead of "deduplicate" to get a weak dependency.
>
>
Hi,
On Sat, 25 Aug 2018, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Urgh.
>
> I am reluctantly (yet gratefully!) working on implementing Ian's
> substvar hack.
Or you could have read dh_linktree's manual page and see that you can
use "replace" instead of "deduplicate" to get a weak dependency.
$ git diff
diff
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Perl folks, the short version is that Lintian wasn't actually checking for
> scripts that used /usr/bin/env perl, so our check when we closed #683495
> was bogus. Lintian has now changed based on Policy, and it looks like
> there were around 2,000
Hello,
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> So I have been wondering several times whether we should move the
> maintainer information elsewhere. For example, tracker.d.o could be
> extended to record maintainer information. It could also understand
> the concept of "teams" listing
Hello Russ,
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thanks to a ton of hard work by Guillem, finishing up the work that Osamu
> Aoki started, debian-policy Git head is now DocBook. It's currently using
> xsltproc and dblatex to generate its output (and my plan is to proceed
> with that for
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The list and descriptions:
>
> > virtual-mysql-client - A MySQL database compatible client package
> > virtual-mysql-client-core- A MySQL database compatible client core
> > package
> > virtual-mysql-server - A MySQL database
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>[…]
> >>
> >>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
> >>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
> >>package that the source tree builds. All the binary packages have a
> >>corresponding
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Russ Allbery wrote:
> These all look good to me. Seconded (and quoted below for the convenience
> of others who may want to review and second).
Seconded.
>
> > From 0bc030c417adfa7ca50944c918101dd9ce62bebb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Guillem Jover
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> And, policy maintainers, could you give me a permission to release it
> as 3.4.18, please? If none of you would say any objection for some days,
> I'll add me as Uploaders and upload it.
I don't think you need any extra permission for this. The
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Though shouldn't this be worded a bit more generic? There are also
> /lib32 vs /usr/lib32 and /lib64 vs /usr/lib64 (and possibly other
> suffixes like libx32).
>
> Also I don't think Policy should require maintainer scripts for the
> implementation
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016, Bill Allombert wrote:
> So to recap, Marco proposal is
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 404dc73..74f0a3b 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -8508,6 +8508,21 @@ fi
> renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, both
> programs
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> No, we should stop filing O bugs. Instead we have just come up with a
> nice definition of an orphaned package, it's called the
> no-human-maintainer lintian tag:
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/no-human-maintainers.
Sorry, the
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Charles Plessy wrote:
> if I remember well, this policy was set because some developers were
> (rightfully in my opinion) annoyed when the Maintainer field is a moderated
> mailing list and there is no Uploader field.
I don't think that this requirement makes sense. They
Hi,
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014, Steve Langasek wrote:
If we're going to have this in collab-maint, I think it's probably important
to ensure that git commits are announced on debian-policy. Could someone
set this up?
Done.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014, Bill Allombert wrote:
Personnaly, I would prefer if
Hi,
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
An easy improvement is to switch to Git and collab-maint, and to
announce that direct commits of consensual changes are OK.
After that, we could call for help.
Raphael, Marc, are you fine with that?
Yes.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
This is all very well but I think de jure they aren't a delegated team,
and the distinction is defined in the constitution. This is not
trivially bypassable, because a delegated team is one who
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013, Bill Allombert wrote:
Such policy change should have been proposed before --commit was implemented.
dpkg is supposed to follow policy not the other way round.
No, the policy doesn't dictate everything top-down. Large part of it are
built on top of existing practices that it
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
In general, when using source format 3.0 (quilt) or later, running
`dpkg-source -x' on a source package will produce the source of
the package, ready for editing. This will allow one to make
changes and run `dpkg-buildpackage' to
Hi,
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think this is starting to convince me that this means I should be
using a different kind of field name. This isn't really suitable. In
particular, it shouldn't interact with any deliberate setting of Vcs-*
by the maintainer.
Yes, Dgit-Commit or
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
Nevertheless, please let me try to refocus on the question of whether
the Policy can be updated or not.
I believe we can update the policy whatever the status of this specific
bug.
Here is what is written in the Policy about postinst configure:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
Can you explain what the bug is and what the correction will be ? Because I
The bug is that triggers are run while the dependencies of the triggered
package are not satisfied. The fix is not to do that and wait until those
dependencies are satisfied
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 08:55:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
regarding “noawait” triggers, the patch already contains the following,
which
is new and improved compared to the existing documentation.
The tt*-noawait/tt directives
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
After reading #671711 and /usr/share/doc/dpkg-dev/triggers.txt.gz, my
impression is that a package can not become Unpacked and keep a list of
pending triggers, because of the following statements in triggers.txt:
1) Pending triggers are marked
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
In #685646 the advise for versioning for {stable,testing}{,-security}
uploads was adjusted. In [1] there is a missing bit for it refering to
the older convention +codename1. I tried to address this change in
attached patch.
Thanks, applied.
--
Hi,
On Thu, 16 May 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
Guillem recently posted on debian-devel about noawait triggers, and I would
like to send a link to the patch to the Policy once it gets futher
proof-reading and seconds. Or if it takes time, shall I point to this bug log
on -devel ?
I don't see
(Your last mail was not sent to the BTS but to the ML directly)
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I didn't mean to imply someone other than the relevant UI maintainers
would need to write code for this to happen; we could simply add some
wording along the lines of
packages that
Hi Charles,
On Sat, 11 May 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that I took care of all of your comments.
Here is an updated patch. Among the changes, it introduces
sub-section to make the information easier to digest.
Thank you for the work! I have a few fixes and suggestions but otherwise
Hello,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Tobias Wolter wrote:
there's an outdated hyperlink in
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#helper-scripts
pointing to
http://arch.debian.org/arch/private/srivasta/
which does not exists anymore.
Thanks, I dropped
Hi Charles,
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
I am still seeking comments for the attached patch, that describes Dpkg
triggers.
Here are my comments. There's quite a bit of work left.
From 6a7fd0e49cb8dbd025771feb95c2dcafb408c1b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Charles Plessy
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
+Dpkg defines the folowing states for the packages.
+taglist
+ tagNot-Installed/tag
I would use the precise states listed in dpkg(1), i.e
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
It should work way better than before, in part thanks the to the usage
and bug reporting from MIT, but as you say there's still some wrinkles,
which I plan on fixing for 1.17.x; in any case I'm always interested in
any bug reports affecting these.
Control: tag -1 pending
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Paul Wise wrote:
I didn't see the comments from Charles Plessy as I wasn't subscribed to
the bug and he did not CC me. I've attached a new version adopting his
suggestions.
Patch applied with some tweaks (suggestion of David and also reformulation
Hi,
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm looking for seconds so that we can finally merge this monster.
Presented as a diff since that was the request last time, but the branch
has also been pushed to the Policy Git repository, so if you want to
review it various other ways, you can
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
* Raphaël Hertzog hert...@debian.org [2012-07-12 08:46:03 CEST]:
Both the changelog and the copyright files are stored with a package's
normal data (within data.tar in the .deb) but they are really package
metadata (that should be part of
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
HOWEVER, I think putting those files in a clear place on the file system
so that they can be easily read via a pager by the end user without using
dpkg-query commands is not only mandatory for the transition period but
mandatory permanently. I would
Hi,
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012, Paul Gevers wrote:
On the typograhy side, it is very minor, but since you added a bullet point
to
the list in 5.13.2, you can make the now previous bullet point finish by a
semicolon (see below), and the last bullet point finishing by a dot.
So, how about the
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Charles Plessy wrote:
before it is too late. I also would like to add that it is a bit of a
slippery
slope to use seconded statements as votes instead of indications that the
discussion has ended on a conclusion, as it is done with the Policy, where
this
method
Hi,
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
The 15th Edition was published in 2003. Since then, my personal
impression is that opposition to generic he has hardened considerably
and opposition to singular they has weakened somewhat. Using he as a
generic pronoun for a person of
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, Per Andersson wrote:
See attached patch for clarification of removals from testing.
Thanks, applied.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
Attached is a corrected patch, which fixes the verb agreement issue above
and makes a few other tweaks (e.g., not introducing passive tense where it's
not needed, which is worse than the original problem it aims to fix), and
also catches a few
Hi,
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012, David Prévot wrote:
Developpers-reference maintainers, do you want to address any more issue
before actually uploading the package? If not, I'll poke translators as
soon as I get an ACK from any of you, or within five days if I don't get
a NACK.
I have not planned to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not correct. If a package is already installed but a newever
version is available, then this will be upgraded if the priority is 1.
It just won't be selected for installation automatically.
This is how experimental works: packages in
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
Part of the goal of waiting until we were in release freeze was precisely
so that it was clear that people shouldn't target wheezy with updates for
this version of Policy. Maybe we should make that explicit by declining
to release the new version into
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 07:09:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Debian is used on small systems where users still like to have
documentation, and
support zlib compression is
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
-ifneq (,$(filter noopt,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
-CFLAGS += -O0
-else
-CFLAGS += -O2
-endif
+CFLAGS := -Wall $(shell dpkg-buildflags --get CFLAGS)
ifeq (,$(filter nostrip,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
INSTALL_PROGRAM += -s
endif
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
And you must take care because $(shell dpkg-buildflags ...) will not see
the DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_PREPEND that you have set in the rules
files. Either you do $(shell
DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_PREPEND=... dpkg-buildflags ...) or you use
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
A.2.2. debdiff, A.5.3. dcut and A.6.7. dpkg-depcheck styles of
handwriting are Bold.
It seems that it will be changed into bold if it surrounds by command.
Commands other than these are surrounded by systemitem role=package.
Therefore, the style
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
For our example, the ttzlib1g/tt filesymbols/file file
would contain:
example compact=compact
* Build-Depends-Package: zlib1g-dev
/example
(Don't forget the leading space.)
What leading space are you
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
+ p
+ example
+varlibrary-soname/var varmain-dependency-template/var
+[ | varalternative-dependency-template/var ]
+[ ... ]
+[ * varfield-name/var: varfield-value/var ]
+[ ... ]
+ varsymbol/var varminimal-version/var[
Hi,
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
p
If a package contains a binary or library which links to a
shared library, we must ensure that, when the package is
installed on the system, all of the libraries needed are also
installed. These
Hi,
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012, David Prévot wrote:
As you may have noticed, the English document looks different: I quickly
copied and pasted part of the maint-guide build system (the xslt
directory is directly copied from there, and probably needs to be
adapted to keep the current look), in order
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
On the other hand, if you are saying that packagers should not wait
for any official pronouncement to implement whatever
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=verbose/quiet option they please, then I would agree
with you. xz-utils has supported
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 01:14:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
Dear all,
here is a patch that updates §9.10: now that doc-base uses triggers, I
think it
is better to simply
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
Of course entities are translatable. What are you actually wanting to say ?
Well, nowadays we expect to handle translations just with PO files. And in
this context, you're expected to keep an entity between the original
string and the translated one.
a
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
I would suggest we use entities instead of hard-coding 'MUST NOT/SHOULD NOT'.
This way it will be easier to generate policy document with the lower case
variant for people who cannot read uppercase words.
Entities are not translatable. Even if there's
Hi,
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011, Charles Plessy wrote:
how about also removing ‘unofficial’ in the sentence below ?
Please read the unofficial debian-mentors FAQ at ulink
url=url-mentors;/ulink first.
Agreed, I have made the change locally, will push later.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian
Hello Jérôme,
you have been filing such bugs in Ubuntu and I closed at least one you
filed against dpkg.
I hope that if this debian-policy request gets turned off, you will stop
filing such wishlist bugs everywhere.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Jérôme wrote:
Most of the time I think that log files
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Thinking is not enough, we would like to see facts.
I just wanted to add that changing this means changing the names of many
compressed log files and potentially breaking some (custom) scripts which
are relying on the current configuration.
So I think
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Charles Plessy wrote:
This adds Built-Using in §5.6.10 (“Package interrelationship fields: Depends,
Pre-Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Breaks, Conflicts, Provides, Replaces,
Enhances”). In Policy's chapter 5, the fields in that list are documented to
be present in source
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Right. Could someone update the patch?
Patch refreshed with Santiago's suggestions.
I took the time to expand it a little bit.
I merged it but I changed the wording (hopefully improving it!).
Cf attached patch.
Thanks for your contribution!
Hi,
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
I though about this, but couldn't come up with any easy solution. I
mostly consider this tool to be useful for people who just have to check
the very last versions of the policy, so the problem is actually quite
mitigated.
I don't even
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011, David Prévot wrote:
I can't remember how the branches looks like on DDP Subversion
repository, and I can't find an on line view of Subversion repository on
the new Alioth front-end, could someone please refresh my memory or push
developers-reference r8880 content to its
Hi,
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
1/ I'd argue that in the case of downgrade, dpkg should not try to run
the failed-upgrade fallback because there's no way the oldest version
can be aware of how to work-around a problem in a prerm script
Hi,
to better understand this mail you can refer to this diagram
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/MaintainerScripts.html#sec-3.4.3
During an upgrade from V1 to V2, if V1-prerm upgrade V2 fails, dpkg tries
to run V2-prerm failed-upgrade V1 and if it works the upgrade
continues normally.
This
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, chris h wrote:
We (Grml) would like to switch back to short Version: strings for our
kernel packages, as they already have the major version number in
the package name, to allow co-installation of multiple versions, and
there's no point in duplicating this info in the
Hi David,
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011, David Prévot wrote:
Lucas, Raphaël, could we consider moving away of pdflatex build? This
may allow to build the Japanese PDF, which would also be an improvement.
I don't care much of the build process (as long as it works and it stays
out of my way).
If
Hi,
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
Has the following been considered:
- adding a command-line option for dpkg-buildpackage to explicitly
enable particular build-features (overriding the feature in the
source package).
This has not been suggested yet, I'm not opposed to the idea
Hi,
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
2) This change breaks actual packages. Even if no such package exist in
squeeze, users
could still want to install older or unofficial packages, or created with
dpkg-repack.
The next version of dpkg has --force-bad-version to work around this.
Hi,
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
+The list may include (or consist solely of) the special
This has switched from tabs to spaces.
This is due to a bad vim modeline. I fixed it as well. Looks like policy
editors mainly use emacs :)
With those fixed, seconded.
Hello,
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Martin Eberhard Schauer wrote:
reviewing the German translation I found that this section is
outdated. I rewrote some
of the stuff with my background as Debian translator.
Can you send your suggestions as a patch to the docbook files?
$ svn co
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Chris Leick wrote:
Hi,
while translating this reference to german, I've found some typos
and punctuation errors. The patch attached will fix them.
No it will not. You need to fix the errors in the .dbk files.
But it's nice to avoid fuzzying the translations, so it's
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
It does not allow them in available though breaking many systems that
have or in the past had a package with such a version available. At
least 4 people on irc have run into that problem that I saw already.
It does allow them in available. Those
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
The bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/89038
is still looking for two more seconds. This would allow us to retire the
tiny separate mime-policy document. Could other folks take a look and
confirm that all looks well?
Seconded. It's fine for me.
Hi,
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
1. upstream_version must start with a digit;
Unfortunately, we cannot force upstream to use a version that start by a
digit,
We would need to document a mangling process for upstream version that start
by a letter.
We have no upstream with
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
First this might force users to use UTF-8 locale. While this is the default,
this is not
mandatory in Debian. I know users that stays with ISO8859-1 because they have
a lot of
text files in that encoding.
Until the C.UTF-8 proposal is
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I like your proposed alternative. Maybe the policy could say that you
should (in the policy sense) thoroughly analyze the consequences and
alternatives before adding pre-depends, and that one way to do so (in
a friendly advice sense) is to ask on
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Raphael Hertzog wrote[1]:
It has been discussed on -release, not on -devel:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/02/threads.html#00381
(I don't think it matters much given that all important
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Well, I want to interpret it as meaning *something* --- though I'm not
filing RC bugs or anything. I had thought that the general rule is
that violating a policy should is always a bug (either in your
package or in policy), though not necessarily an
:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 03:14:00PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It looks like this:
Package-List:
src:dpkg admin required
Is there a reason for not listing the type explicit for every entry?
Something like this:
dpkg source admin required
dpkg deb admin required
dselect udeb admin
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
First line is always
the source entry.
Do you want this constraint part of the definition or a implementation
detail?
I don't
Hello,
ftpmasters requested a new field in the .dsc files to ease their work.
I just implemented it and it will be part of dpkg 1.16.0.
This has been done on short notice so I wanted to inform policy people
so that you can review the discussions and the design in case anyone has
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 03:14:00PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Package-List:
src:dpkg admin required
dpkg admin required
dpkg-dev utils optional
libdpkg-dev libdevel optional
libdpkg-perl perl optional
udeb:dselect admin optional
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Julien Cristau wrote:
Does XC-Package-Type also work? debhelper uses
/^(?:X[BC]*-)?Package-Type:\s*(.*)/ to populate the package type.
Yes. I was simplifying somewhat.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
Attached is a patch to update policy's FHS exception to reflect the current
consensus among the gcc, eglibc, and dpkg maintainers around the paths to
use for implementation and the interface packages should use to query these
paths.
[...]
From
Hi,
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
But in anycase, I do not think that statement like
As a package maintainer, you're supposed to fulfill the Debian
Social Contract by providing high-quality packages that are well integrated
in the system and that adhere to the Debian Policy.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Andrew McMillan wrote:
-Don't be surprised if the MIA team enters in action and ends up orphaning
-your packages (see xref linkend=mia-qa /). But you should really avoid
-that situation in the first place and ensure that your packages get the
attention
-that they
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'd like to suggest changes to the last paragraph, though:
Lack of attention to RC bugs is often interpreted by the QA team as a sign
that the maintainer has disappeared without properly orphaning his package.
-Don't be surprised if the MIA team
Hi Bill,
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
As the name imply, this a reference document, not a prescriptive document. It
should
provide technical answer to technical question. Fundamentally it only
provides advices.
Patronizing would be bad form.
Please be specific, can you tell
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, Charles Plessy wrote:
I do not like for instance, the way you write:
Lack of attention to RC bugs is grounds for the QA team to orphan the
package.
In the pledge that inspired your patch, you present orphaning by the QA as a
sanction:
[I will] not complain if
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Charles Plessy wrote:
Yes, I think that the release is important, and no, I do not think that we
should write vague encouragements the Developers reference. I think that it is
a place for precise informations, not for morale lessons.
I think that my patch contains precise
Hello,
I have written a patch for the developers-reference where I update the
chapter about debian developer's duties. Most notably I have added
that a maintainer ought to support the (stable) release process
by collaborating with the release team.
Charles Plessy is worried that my text would
Hi,
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The most interesting patch to review is the third one and it's this one
where I would like to have some feedback. In the absence of objections, I
will commit this sometimes next week.
Anyone willing to review it?
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Hi,
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011, Charles Plessy wrote:
+section id=help-release
+titleWork towards the next stable release/title
+para
+Providing high-quality packages in unstable is not enough, most users will
+only benefit from your packages when they are released as part of the next
Hi,
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
) I suspect others like it, too, but who knows? Patch attached.
Seconds or objections welcome.
Seconded. It's long and I might have missed some inaccuracies but I think
it's an improvement in clarity.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian
tag 548867 + patch
thanks
Hello,
please find attatched 3 patches that try to update the Debian Developer's
Duties chapter to make it more clear that package maintainers have
responsibilities in making the next stable release happen and in
maintaining their packages in stable (and not only in
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Raphaël,
here are a couple of comments :
Ok, I integrated your comments. A new revision of the patch is attached.
Only Debian Developers with upload rights can. I propose to either write this
explicitely, or remove the word “Any”.
I dropped
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 10:32:34PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -Wall -g
That would be wrong. A package build shouldn't depend on random env
variables.
Depend on, or respect?
Why shouldn't we expect packages to
tag 453313 + patch
thanks
Hi,
please find attached a proposed patch for this bug. Any review/ack welcome.
Since the patch might not be very readable, I'll paste here the
rewritten section (beware, it's rather long):
section id=sponsoring
titleSponsoring packages/title
para
Sponsoring a
1 - 100 of 301 matches
Mail list logo
