Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-08-12 Thread Russ Allbery
Russ Allbery writes: > I like this general approach. Thank you! I played with a bit and came > up with the following. This retains a Policy should only for the > correct setting of the Maintainer field for an orphaned package and > remains silent on when packages are orphaned. This change has

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-26 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > I like this general approach. Thank you! I played with a bit and came up > with the following. This retains a Policy should only for the correct > setting of the Maintainer field for an orphaned package and remains silent > on when packages are orphaned

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-26 Thread Charles Plessy
Dear Russ, thanks for your preseverance. I second your patch below. -- Charles Le Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 02:52:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > index e5134ed..d6c63f6 100644 > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -907,23 +907,40 @@ > >

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-26 Thread Russ Allbery
Charles Plessy writes: > Still not completely: a sentence like “The maintainer then becomes > Debian QA Group” gives a feeling of automation that does not match > reality: somebody has to do the work, and we do not have bots to replace > humans for this task. > How about moving in the footnote t

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-24 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > So, the question here is not really about whether or not "should" is > appropriate but whether Policy is the right place to say "should" about > this since it's a procedural issue more than a package content issue. Right - it's not th

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-21 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > Charles and Steve, you're the two who objected to or were avoiding the > "should" language. Does this persuade you? Still not completely: a sentence like “The maintainer then becomes Debian QA Group” gives a feeling of automati

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-19 Thread Russ Allbery
Russ Allbery writes: > Hm, but actually, isn't the magic of "should" appropriate here? If a > package is unmaintained but not orphaned, that *is* a bug, which is what > "should" means. Admittedly, Policy normally only governs the contents > of packages and not procedural issues in Debian like o

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-18 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
Hi, On 13/07/10 04:15, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek writes: > >> Moving this out of a footnote into the body of policy would probably make >> this hang together better. Perhaps: > >> If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to maintain a >> package, it will be or

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-16 Thread Russ Allbery
Charles Plessy writes: > I liked the original wording, that implied that if a package is not > maintained, or if its maintainer has given up, then it is orphaned, > regardless how this is documented in the source package. The concern that a couple of people had was that they felt it implied the

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-16 Thread Charles Plessy
> #459868 Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list > Need to resolve whether it's appropriate to say that an unmaintained > package "should" be orphaned. Hello everybody, In my impression, the Policy is about how packages should be, and the Developers Reference is about what pa

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-13 Thread Russ Allbery
Steve Langasek writes: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:02:43AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: >>> + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to >>> + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to the >>> + procedure des

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-13 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:02:43AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to > > > + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-12 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:02:43AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > > + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to > > + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to the > > + procedure described in the Debian Develo

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-12 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to > + maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to the > + procedure described in the Debian Developer's Reference > + (see ). The maintainer then "It wil

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-12 Thread Russ Allbery
Steve Langasek writes: > Moving this out of a footnote into the body of policy would probably make > this hang together better. Perhaps: > If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to maintain a > package, it will be orphaned according to the procedure described in the >

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-11 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:01:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every > > package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're > > saying that the package needs one, not just the software. > Here's a patch which im

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-08 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > > > Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every > > package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're > > saying that the package needs one, not just the software. > > Here's a patch

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-07 Thread Russ Allbery
Russ Allbery writes: > Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every > package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're > saying that the package needs one, not just the software. Here's a patch which implements that. Objections or seconds? diff --

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Ben Finney writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> Maybe that would be best. The concern that I had is that it wouldn't be >> clear that a package just being maintained upstream isn't sufficient; >> someone needs to be responsible for the package as it exists in Debian. > Part of my difficulty here i

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-04 Thread Ben Finney
Russ Allbery writes: > Maybe that would be best. The concern that I had is that it wouldn't > be clear that a package just being maintained upstream isn't > sufficient; someone needs to be responsible for the package as it > exists in Debian. Part of my difficulty here is the lack of a succint t

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Ben Finney writes: > What is it, then, that distinguishes conformant packages from packages > that simply have a ‘debian/’ directory? If the result is a working > package that otherwise conforms, what more is needed, exactly? > In other words, why is it not enough to simply say: > Every pac

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-04 Thread Ben Finney
Charles Plessy writes: > Le Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:11:27PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a > > member of the Debian project. Thank you for pointing out the flaws in this formulation. > > I think that ‘Every package must have

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Ben Finney writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> Maybe "maintainer in Debian"? Or "maintainer for Debian"? > Given that “Debian” is an operating system, that doesn't seem like an > improvement in clarity. > How about: > Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a > mem

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-04 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 07:57:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > Maybe "maintainer in Debian"? Or "maintainer for Debian"? Le Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:11:27PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > How about: > > Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a > member of th

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Charles Plessy writes: > Le Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 01:04:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : >> + Every package must have a Debian maintainer. > Hello everybody, > given the recent discussion on debian-project, how about taking the > opportunity of this bug to disambiguate this sentence as we

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2010-07-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Joerg Jaspert writes: > I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as > a Maintainer: address. [...] > I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF: > ---+++--- > If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must > be configured to accept m

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-25 Thread Russ Allbery
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm sorry, Uploaders has no "function" except when combined with > DM-Upload-Allowed. One can perfectly upload a package without being in > the Uploaders in the default case. I agree in general, although I will note that Uploaders is also used by the

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-25 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 24/01/08 at 23:22 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> +++---+++ > >> If the Maintainer: field points to a mailing list then the Uploader: > >> field has to contain at least one human. > >> ---+++--- > > This is a good requirement, I think. (Actually, I would have expected > > Uploader to contain o

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-24 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 11274 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > >>> ---+++--- >>> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must >>> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to >>> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-24 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 11274 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >> ---+++--- >> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must >> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to >> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the >> BTS, all mails f

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-24 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 11274 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote: >> ---+++--- >> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must >> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to >> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the >> BTS, all mails fro

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-24 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Hi, > I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF: > > ---+++--- > If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must > be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to > send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the > BT

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-24 Thread Ian Jackson
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list"): > ---+++--- > If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must > be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to > send aut

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-14 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 11260 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> ---+++--- >> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must >> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to >> send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the >> BTS, all mails

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-10 Thread Richard Hartmann
On Jan 10, 2008 8:38 AM, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouldn't it make sense to accept all signed mails, or all mails signed > by a DD? I don't know how hard it would be to implement in mailman. Accepting all signed mail is usually a Good Thing (tm), yes. Even without actually chec

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-10 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 09/01/08 at 09:21 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > ---+++--- > If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must > be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to > send automated mails regarding the package. This includes mail from the > BTS, all mails

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-09 Thread Luk Claes
Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > > Hi > > I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as > a Maintainer: address. The current "3.3 The maintainer of a package" > reads > Additionally I would like: > > +++---+++ > If the Maintainer: fie

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-09 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 11259 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> ---+++--- >> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must >> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to >> send automated mails regarding the package. T

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-09 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF: > > ---+++--- > If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must > be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to > send automated mails regarding the pack

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

2008-01-09 Thread Joerg Jaspert
Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Hi I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as a Maintainer: address. The current "3.3 The maintainer of a package" reads ------ Every package must have a Debian maintainer (the maintainer may be one person or a group of pe