Bug#1064454: debian-policy: Restrict deb822 field names more

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:08:38 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Would it make sense to change this to use an inclusive list of permitted > characters instead? How about checking the field names that is in use > today, and construct a regexp of permitted symbols out of that? > Starting point:

Bug#1024367: In 4.9.1, the example uses not recommended install -s

On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 15:16:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I'm therefore going to propose fixing this bug with the following patch, > which is more aggressive than you propose. > > I think this is informative rather than normative and therefore > technically doesn't require seconds, but I'll give

Bug#1051371: debian-policy: stop referring to legacy filesystem paths for script interpreters

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 21:28:15 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > Yes, that is fine by me, as explained in later replies my main > intention is to fix the issue that some wording is being used to > reintroduce things that should not be reintroduced If I understand you correctly, "Reintroduc[ing] things

Bug#1020248: [Git][dbnpolicy/policy][master] 2 commits: Use stanza to refer to deb822 parts instead of paragraph

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 01:03:28 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > In the end nothing will match exactly, and we need to choose some > terminology. In this case, as previously mentioned, «stanza» has the > good properties of not usually applying to prose, being short, distinct > from the other terms and

Bug#959909: debian-policy: complete implementation of ctte decision to forbid vendor-specific series files

On Wed, 06 May 2020 13:28:53 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Quoting from #904302: > > > The Committee therefore resolves that: > > > > 1. Any use of dpkg's vendor-specific patch series feature is a bug for > >packages in the Debian archive (including contrib and non-free). > > > >This

Bug#944325: please fix this unclear and obtuse phrasing in §7.8 (suggestion provided)

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:01:21 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 10:29AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote: > > How about: > > > > This field should only be used when there are license or DFSG > > requirements to retain the referenced source package. It should not > > be added

Bug#904246: developers-reference: section 6.4 should recommend command -v, not which

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:58:12 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > > Additionally see the discussion in #747320, where Jakub Wilk does point > > out that maintainer scripts may assume /usr is mounted, so I'm not sure > > about this. > how is it relevant if /usr is mounted? if its not, both 'which' and

Bug#944296: debian-policy: Source provenance requirement is WET

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:00:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > IMO, ideally the requirement in policy would be lifted by clarifying > > that the information should be provided in *either* debian/copyright > > or debian/watch. > > Personally, I usually find they're not the same thing. debian/watch

Re: Bug#932753: tag2upload should record git tag signer info in .dsc [and 1 more messages]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:54:29 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Unfortunately , doing something extensible within the field requires adding > > a separator, which in turn requires dealing with escaping, and thus is > > kind of a mess. Given that, what if you instead used two fields: > > > >

Bug#761219: debian-policy: document versioned Provides

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:00:58 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Fri 07 Jun 2019 at 10:50AM +01, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > > index 1d790e8..3b68420 100644 > > --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst > > +++

Bug#798476: Heads-up: new lintian error: no-human-maintainers

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 15:13:35 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:02:49PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > My personal policy regarding this (carried over from my X.Org days) is > > to ignore it entirely; I see no gain in having specific people being > > listed in Uploaders.

Bug#833401: debian-policy: virtual packages: dbus-session-bus, default-dbus-session-bus

On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:26:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Thanks. Seeking seconds: > > diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.yaml b/virtual-package-names-list.yaml > index ab2662e..f7626ef 100644 > --- a/virtual-package-names-list.yaml > +++ b/virtual-package-names-list.yaml > @@ -106,6

Bug#850156: Patch implementing CTTE decision

On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:14:52 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Seeking seconds: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > index 3c6c9d5..821010f 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > @@ -787,6 +787,13 @@ according to this convention, the C source code

Bug#913659: Document that not all bugs are policy violations

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 19:11:02 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Tue 13 Nov 2018 at 05:51PM GMT, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I suggest adding something like this to s1.1, "Scope", as a new 3rd > > paragraph: > > > > This manual cannot and does not prohibit every possible bug or > > undesirable

Bug#850171: Recommend that manpages contain an EXAMPLES section

On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 14:00:51 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hence I am seeking seconds for this patch I've written: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst > index e990f34..a9b297f 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst > @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ by a note at the

Re: Keeping master releaseable without posting to d-d-a

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 12:51:53 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > This might mean we have to manually merge d/changelog, but I think > that's a reasonable price to pay. As a side note: merging d/changelog works reasonably well with dpkg-mergechangelogs(1). Cheers, gregor -- .''`.

Bug#904248: Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to build-essential

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:45:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > I think we also need a wider request for /etc/services and > /etc/protocols. Till now I only heard Ian asking for it, so I believe > there needs to be a wider request. As a data point: I've seen interesting test failures that were

Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal

On Thu, 02 Aug 2018 15:13:26 +0800, Markus Koschany wrote: > Nothing will break because no tool besides Lintian checks > debian/copyright for copyright format 1.0 compatibility. This is not correct. There are at least cme (with libconfig-model-dpkg-perl), decopy, probably some of

Bug#904608: Support specifying upstream VCS location in debian/control

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:20:52 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > In fact, there is: the Repository field in debian/upstream/metadata.[1] > > Neat! > > I would have expected to find this information in debian/copyright. The > Source field there sometimes names an upstream VCS but isn't required

Bug#459427: Patch seeking seconds on changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:35:48 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > > +If an upstream release notes file is available, containing a summary > > +of changes between upstream releases intended for end users of the > > +package and often called ``NEWS``, it should be accessible as > >

Bug#884223: debian-policy: please add AGPL-3.0 to common licenses

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:59:15 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: (Just as a side note, I'm in favour of adding more licenses to common-licenses): > Take a stopwatch, > find a plain-text version of this license on the internet, format the > file according to copyright format 1.0 and stop the time. %

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:45:51 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think > the most valuable starting point would to be to standardize on > /usr/share/doc/package/NEWS.gz for the human-readable summary and > explicitly say to never install that as > /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.gz. That would

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:34:21 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Most of my Debian and Ubuntu work involves GNOME packaging. For the > > most part, GNOME components ships NEWS files which are much more > > interesting for users or developers to read for highlights of what > > changed when. > This is

Bug#870915: debian-policy: [5.6.30] Testsuite: There are much more defined values

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 12:49:46 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > index 61f2b23..2bc7a07 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -1009,12 +1009,12 @@ reference whose name matches

Bug#873001: [debian-policy] get-orig-source documentation should include a pointer to devref and a minimal example

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 22:10:15 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > How do you plan to instruct uscan how repacking should be done ? Adding files to be removed to Files-Excluded in d/copyright covers about (rough guess) 95% of the cases, without any further changes needed. And for the remaining cases,

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:34:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > index 127b125..6e32870 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > @@ -661,6 +661,28 @@ particularly complex or unintuitive source layout or > build system

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:20:37 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > > So far I've seen mostly voices from people working in teams in this > > thread who are in favour of dropping the required Uploaders field. > So, if you want to count votes: I am working in teams (mainly Debian > Astro), and I would

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:39:40 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Regarding the first point, most large teams do have have the concept of > package ownership inside the team. Maybe, maybe not. So far I've seen mostly voices from people working in teams in this thread who are in favour of dropping the

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:25:32 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: Thanks for your long and elaborate email. Unfortunately I find myself disagreeing with your two main points: > I wonder whether we are framing this in the right way anyway. There > are two orthogonal questions in my mind: > - is a

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Tobias Frost writes: > > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have > > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a > > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did

Bug#835520: Seconding nine patches & seeking seconds for two more

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:55:30 -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > I've spoken to h01ger and gregoa IRL and they say that they missed the > magic word "should" which is what makes debhelper required by these > patches. So I'm seeking seconds for the following replacement for > Andreas' 5th and 8th

Bug#835520: Andreas Henriksson's 11 patches are awesome

On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 18:57:03 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > $ git log master..for-holger --oneline -11 > a8e08d5 Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 11/11] Drop entire section 9.4 Console messages > from init.d scripts > dfa8fae Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 10/11] Add reference to systemd integration > examples >

Bug#542288: debian-policy: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 08:52:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Sean Whitton writes: > > > Some people frown upon this practice, but there are more than one of us > > that do it, so probably worth mentioning in policy as a secondary use of > > native packages (possibly a

Bug#758234: debian-policy: allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 13:13:31 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > I also think a really good upgrade notice for this is needed. Should be > very clearly mentioned people adjusting their packages should not forget > to also file a bug against ftp.debian.org to align the overrides. My guess is that

Bug#175064: DocBook XML conversion is read with this script

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:51:07 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Use entities instead of literal <, > and & It seems you've converted some '>' to '' but not all? > -if [ "$1" = start ] && which initctl >/dev/null && initctl version | grep -q > upstart > +if [ "$1" = start ]

Bug#850646: [copyright-format] Allow https version of Format URI

On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 12:02:38 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here's an updated patch that also fixes the other examples. Thanks! > diff --git a/copyright-format/copyright-format-1.0.xml > b/copyright-format/copyright-format-1.0.xml > index 8b72e10..f33c5a2 100644 > ---

Bug#841877: Don't recommend contacting base-passwd maintainer for dynamic UIDs

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:23:30 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > I (obviously) agree. How about this patch? I'm seeking seconds for > this proposal. > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > index 9cd182b..ab4f736 100644 > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -9610,9 +9610,7 @@ ln -fs

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a > > mailing list and no Uploaders field. > Do you realize that upload of such package will count as

Re: Bug#679751: Lintian now detect package pointing to /home

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:25:27 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:34:20AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: After a chat under #debian-qa it appear that canonical path for non existant home dir is /nonexistant could be documented ? If we do (and I'm not expressing any opinion

Bug#750017: perl-policy: All packages using Perl vendorarch directory need a perlapi-* dependency

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 09:53:11 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org writes: I now realize that this wording unintentionally removes the perlapi requirement for binary modules outside vendorarch (see for instance the amanda-common package, which uses /usr/lib/amanda/perl/).

Bug#750017: perl-policy: All packages using Perl vendorarch directory need a perlapi-* dependency

On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:33:48 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: --- perl-policy.sgml | 7 --- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/perl-policy.sgml b/perl-policy.sgml index c23f7c3..e83c8c5 100644 --- a/perl-policy.sgml +++ b/perl-policy.sgml @@ -388,13 +388,14 @@

Bug#685506: copyright-format: new Files-Excluded field

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:23:17 +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:54:13PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: This probably belongs into the Header paragraph (once) section as an additional bullet point Files-Excluded: optional. I don't agree: I find it better to allow several

Bug#685506: debian-policy: Please add field Files-Excluded to machine readable copyright files definition

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:34:50 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ --- 8 - Files-Excluded -- Whitespace-separated list: list of patterns indicating files

Bug#678607: debian-policy: original authors in 12.5 is unclear

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:39:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Policy 12.5 says: In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors. The last part is not at all clear. Prior to a recent conversation on

Re: Proposal to update NMU section 5.11.1

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:34:00 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: For instance, say a potential maintainer picks up an old package to do an NMU on, and updates the version of debhelper from v5 to v8, switches from 1.0 format to 3.0 quilt format, and likewise has to make numerous other similar tweaks

Bug#658209: DEP-5: Clarifying copyright/license requirements

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:14:11 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: would the follwing be sufficient in your opinion ? Thank you! --- copyright-format.xml (révision 252) +++ copyright-format.xml (copie de travail) @@ -42,8 +42,11 @@ automatically extract licensing information.

Bug#643690: perl policy unclear about the section for manpages

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:06:31 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Yes, this tripped me up too. Here's a proposed patch. Seconds or further discussion? I'll copy debian-perl as well for further review. From f6938d47f9250f672586191cc00988e9e61cea06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Russ Allbery

Bug#633797: copyright-format: with keywords exception underspecified

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:03:27 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I have no objection to this for 1.0, provided we at the same time clarify that if more than one exception is in use, you need to use a custom shortname instead of an ORed or ANDed list of licenses. Is there a consensus for this

Bug#640737: [copyright-format] Format URL and installation on www.debian.org

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:33:57 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:58:37PM -0400, David Prévot a écrit : Le 22/10/2011 10:57, Charles Plessy a écrit : Le Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 06:27:15PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : So I propose to do the following, in line with

Bug#641071: DEP: 5 Machine-readable debian/copyright - License specifications - Link broken

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:12:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I attached a patch that corrects or adds links to the SPDX Open Source License Registry. Looks good to me, thanks. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key ID: 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian

Bug#648387: [copyright-format] English proofreading.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:24:21 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: For what it's worth, I find the text more readable after JBR's changes than before. Same here. On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:01:05 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: DEP drivers: do these changes look reasonable to you? Policy delegates:

Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:13:06 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: From 87c527dce3a9f8dcaca7cf43f830ce9ff178f4e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dominic Hargreaves d...@earth.li Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:11:29 + Subject: [PATCH] Describe the Perl upgrade trigger --- perl-policy.sgml | 20

Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:50:20 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: Is there progress on the implementation of this feature ? It's in perl 5.12.3 since the upload to unstable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/05/msg6.html So are you seconding this policy amendment ? If Niko

Bug#620566: dpkg: version number does not start with digit is in contrast to policy

On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:40:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I think this is an interesting conversation, but so far as I can tell it's not particularly relevant to Policy. There are no such packages with those version numbers currently in Debian, so Policy can simply say that there will never be

Bug#587991: perl-policy: /etc/perl missing from Module Path

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:15:28 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: I see this has been seconded by Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org (message #25) and I imagine that Russ might be willing to second this, but that still leaves us one DD short[1]. Seconds? Objections? Clarifications? diff --git

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:08:18 +, Roger Leigh wrote: · Standard alternative use in the form concrete|virtual, as used for normal deps on virtual packages. Is this sensible? · Architecture-specific dependencies · Broken uses. Dependencies on multiple different libraries which will

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:28:05 +, Roger Leigh wrote: perl (= 5.10) | libmodule-build-perl Could you please explain what's pointless and/or broken about that one? (Except that it's old since even lenny has 5.10.0. Yes, that's exactly the reason. Because the perl (= 5.10) is

Bug#610298: phasing out tar-in-tar in source packages

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:39:26 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:24:25PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: And we have them for this reason; or put otherwise, we'd like to get rid of them which requires at least one of two things: [..] I don't mind deprecating bundles

Bug#610298: phasing out tar-in-tar in source packages

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:29:42 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: tar-in-tar source packages, i.e. Debian source packages which contains upstream sources in compressed form and uncompress them on the fly during the build process, are a bit of a PITA. Indeed, they are -- we have a couple in the

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:14:06 +, Julian Gilbey wrote: maybe also if uscan just works and d/watch is sufficiently clear (not a proper wording for Policy but as a rough idea). Not the latter please: it is not useful if you only have the binary package installed but not the source. Good

Bug#609160: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:38:12 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I still don't get how the versioned Format URL will look like once DEP5 will be shipped by debian-policy though. Would it use the Vcs-Browser of the debian-policy package or ...? Just curious. From the attached diff in the first

Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:17:03 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I think it might be okay to make the indication of the origin of the upstream source in debian/copyright optional *if* Homepage clearly provides the same information for that package. (Note: this will not be the case for all packages

Bug#593611: Clarify whose signature should go in debian/changelog (4.4)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:37:24 +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote: On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 21:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -1688,11 +1688,14 @@ p The maintainer name and email address used in the changelog - should be the details of

Bug#591857: debian-policy: please clarify which of DEB_{BUILD,HOST}_* is which

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:28:51 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: It is utterly non-obvious what the BUILD and HOST architectures mean. [..] Browsing the relevant documentation (debian-policy, man dpkg, ...), I found no place that disambiguates those. Is `man dpkg-architecture' what you are looking

Bug#436105: suggestion to add GPL-1 as a common licence

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:25:57 +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote: If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If the original developer is unhappy with doing that, then they do have uncommon licensing desires.

Bug#436105: suggestion to add GPL-1 as a common licence

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Given that, while I'm very sympathetic to Santiago's argument, I also think that we should be able to represent in packages their upstream licensing statement and not be implicitly relicensing them under later versions of the GPL, Ack,

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:03:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Based on that search, there are still only 20 binary packages in the archive covered by the Artistic 2.0 license. Thanks for your research! Given that, this license really isn't common in Debian, and hence doesn't warrant inclusion in

Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:13:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Any further discussion? Sounds logcial to me. I'm also looking for seconds for the Policy patch below: diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 87b9795..02d6f8d 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -9227,14

Re: Bug#579457: debian-policy: finer granularity for perlapi-*

On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:16:32 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: diff --git a/perl-policy.sgml b/perl-policy.sgml index 1d26df7..1ee5df5 100644 --- a/perl-policy.sgml +++ b/perl-policy.sgml @@ -89,8 +89,11 @@ /p p The packageperl-base/package package must provide -

Re: Removing the manpage requirement for GUI programs?

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:06:37 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: GUI applications usually take only a few simple command-line options, and more importantly, when you use a modern development framework, these options will always be documented correctly with the --help switch. Manpages can be used

Bug#566220: [PATCH v2] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:58:36 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: From: Steve Langasek steve.langa...@canonical.com Claims that the policy never meant copyright notices were supposed to be included in debian/copyright in the first place only muddle the discussion. This says “copyright

Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:16:29 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: ... how this policy is compatible with the observed fact of a dearth of such all-copyright-notices duplication in the actual Debian packages. I seems you are looking at other packages than me; I know quite a few which follow the

Re: Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:39:14 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: I can't recall an ftpmaster *ever* giving their position on this in answer to the questions raised over on debian-devel, and I'd love to be shown where your certainty comes from. As long as there is no other statement I consider it safe to

Re: use README.source to describe whether committing to VCS is desired

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:09:22 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:41:07PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: + p + In addition, filedebian/README.source/file may also be I'd rather use should if, as it seems from the few early messages, there is consensus on

Bug#548823: devref: please point to text file to get #debian-private password

tag 548823 + patch thanks On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:24:29 -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote: instead of wasting peoples time, making them read through debian-private list archives, trying 3 wrong passwords until they finally discover that they could have figured it out much, much easier if

Bug#543417: README.source patch system documentation requirements considered harmful

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:31:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with pointers to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be reserved for things which

Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:43:21 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular enough to warrant inclusion

Re: debian/copyright and Files-Within-Files

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:02:45 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote: How would we represent such a case? Would we need to unpack that tarball and then reference the files appropriately? Unpacking the tarballs would mean modifying the pristine upstream tar, wouldn't it?  I don't think we want to do

Re: Goals of debian/copyright

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:55:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: 8) Provide information about the upstream maintainer and upstream location of the software for non-native software, including any necessary repackaging of upstream source for Debian's purposes. Besides upstream maintainer and

Re: packages with perl-modules, CPAN, Policy

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:08:00 +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: [cc-ing [EMAIL PROTECTED], please adjust address for replies as appropriate] I dislike very much to watch how the admins I'm acquainted with install perl-modules with the help of the command perl -MCPAN -e shell, however there's

Bug#114920: [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:58:12 -0200, Martín Ferrari wrote: On Jan 2, 2008 12:28 AM, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with wording and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and resolve it one way or the other.