Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 90989 [RETRACTED] making all control fields multi-line
Bug#90989: [PROPOSAL] making all control fields multi-line
Changed Bug title.
tag 90989 +wontfix
Unknown tag/s: +wontfix.
Recognized are: patch wontfix moreinfo unreproducible fixed potato
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 01:58:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jaldhar 1. What is the rationale for the policy mail spools must be
Jaldhar 0660 $USER:mail?
For a 660 mailbox with gid==mail, a sgid mail delivery agent
is required. A 600 perm mailbox requires a suid 0
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:22:03PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Sure. *Everything* in policy is just a guideline, and
Anthony there can always be special cases. That's why we have
Anthony maintainers with good judgement.
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaSun Apr 15 11:40:32 PDT 2001
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml upgrading-checklist.html
debian : changelog
Log message:
* Removed recommendation on
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaSun Apr 15 11:53:07 PDT 2001
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
Removed illegasl tag ital; changed it to em
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaSun Apr 15 11:57:18 PDT 2001
Modified files:
debian : changelog
Log message:
Fix breakage in the rules file
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:43:00AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In rare cases, specifically when a package has never been available when
with files in /usr/doc, it's quite reasonable to include the symlink in the
package itself. It's generally not worth the hassle, since most people will
use
On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 03:48:55PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 01:58:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jaldhar 1. What is the rationale for the policy mail spools must be
Jaldhar 0660 $USER:mail?
For a 660 mailbox with gid==mail, a sgid mail delivery
On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 05:03:30AM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
retitle 90989 [RETRACTED] making all control fields multi-line
Bug#90989: [PROPOSAL] making all control fields multi-line
Changed Bug title.
Any reason you retracted this? It seems an eminently sensible thing
to do.
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Sun Apr 15 17:29:28 PDT 2001
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
debconf_spec : debconf_specification.xml
debian : changelog
Log message:
Improvements to chapter
On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 11:23:52PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Jaldhar 1. What is the rationale for the policy mail spools must be
Jaldhar 0660 $USER:mail?
For a 660 mailbox with gid==mail, a sgid mail delivery agent
is required. A 600 perm mailbox requires a suid 0
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Sun Apr 15 17:39:31 PDT 2001
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
Chapter 4 done
[I've gotten to the point of not knowing who said what.. so all
attributions are cut.]
Or better, it requires that the delivery agent runs under uid of the user
that owns the mailbox.
But then the delivery agent has to start off running as root to fire
off an MDA with the user id of
I guess there are two conflicting desires here:
(1) The Acting Release Manager's desire to have it clear what
constitutes an RC bug.
(2) Developers' desires to know what must be done in all cases and
what ought to be done (but there may be exceptions), and what is
currently a
On 15-Apr-01, 20:16 (CDT), Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess there are two conflicting desires here:
(1) The Acting Release Manager's desire to have it clear what
constitutes an RC bug.
(2) Developers' desires to know what must be done in all cases and
what ought to
Julian == Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julian On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 02:22:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So we no longer accept uploads of packages that don't have manpages for
all their binaries?
Julian OK, let's take this example then. At the moment it's only a should.
Seth == Seth Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seth I've wondered about this several times in the past. Would it be
Seth possible/feasible/desirable to have an amendment to policy that
Seth specifies a schedule for its own replacement?
Generally, we have tended to refrain from putting
17 matches
Mail list logo
