The Wanderer writes:
> (Also, unrelated: the Debian mailing list etiquette page says not to
> CC someone on a post to the list unless specifically requested.
Right, thanks for taking notice of that.
> However, hitting Reply on a list message populates the To field only
> with the previous poste
On Tue, Oct 13 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:15:04PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
>>
>> > Well I will do that, but first, I like to be remembered why the old
>> > policy-process document has been removed.
>>
>> W
Raphaël Hertzog writes:
> We have some unwritten packaging rules and it would be good to write
> them down even if some of them appear to be obvious to most of us. I
> think in particular to stuff like:
> - a package must at least be upgradable from one stable release to the next:
> - transiti
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Wed, Oct 07 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> BTW I find no reference in policy about the NEWS.Debian file. It would
>> nice to require to document (at last for one stable release) all (also
>> user visibe API/ABI) incompatibilities in such files.
> It is
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I suggest, then, that we follow POSIX (please note that @reboot
> and @daily and other such convenient contractions are not mentioned in
> the standard, though cron(1) supports them):
>http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/crontab.html
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> @@ -2739,13 +2744,14 @@ Package: libc6
> In the main debian/control file in the source
> package, this field may contain the special value
> any, the special value all, or a list of
> - architectures separated by spaces. If any or
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:15:04PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Well I will do that, but first, I like to be remembered why the old
> > policy-process document has been removed.
>
> Well, because it had become obsolete at the time it w
On Tue, Oct 13 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:23:29AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 11 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>> > Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> >
>> >> But someone really should be writing this up, since the bug
>> >> report was, in my opin
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 392479 + wontfix
Bug #392479 [debian-policy] Request for virtual package ircd
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #392479 to the same tags previously set
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
The Wanderer writes:
> The e16keyedit package used to depend on (or, rather, recommend) the
> enlightenment package. It now recommends on the e16 package. The
> enlightenment package has been removed from Debian, with the
> justification that it has been replaced by the e16 package.
> The enligh
On Sun, Oct 11 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Requirements:
1) Be able to run a batch job periodically, as defined in the POSIX
standards document.
2) Correct execution of /etc/cron.{hourly,daily,weekly,monthly}, as
long as the files are conforming to POSIX standar
tags 545548 +pending
thanks
Hi,
The following change has been committed for this bug by
Manoj Srivastava on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:05:18 -0500.
The fix will be in the next upload.
=
[master]: Added changelog for bug 545
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 545548 +pending
Bug #545548 [debian-policy] debian-policy package should include a pointer to
http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProcess
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
De
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:23:29AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >
> >> But someone really should be writing this up, since the bug
> >> report was, in my opinion, on point: this stuff needs to be written up,
>
On 10/13/2009 11:38 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, The Wanderer wrote:
That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which
does seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an
acceptable situation. Before trying to argue too much about that, I
wanted to
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:23:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which does
> seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an acceptable
> situation. Before trying to argue too much about that, I wanted to
> confirm that it was
On Sun, Oct 11 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> But someone really should be writing this up, since the bug
>> report was, in my opinion, on point: this stuff needs to be written up,
>> and I think that the wiki stuff is already not as good as the README is
>>
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, The Wanderer wrote:
> That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which does
> seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an acceptable
> situation. Before trying to argue too much about that, I wanted to
> confirm that it was in fact 'officially'
On 10/13/2009 09:47 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
The question itself, in its starkest form, is simple.
Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of
anot
On 10/13/2009 11:19 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
(Also, unrelated: the Debian mailing list etiquette page says not to
CC someone on a post to the list unless specifically requested.
However, hitting Reply on a list message populates the To field only
with the previous poster's own address, and hittin
On 10/13/2009 09:50 AM, sean finney wrote:
hi,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of
another package to silently break the system?
what de
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> The question itself, in its starkest form, is simple.
> Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
> package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of another
> package to silently break the system
hi,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
> package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of another
> package to silently break the system?
what defines "silently break the system"? that's
I am not certain that this is the correct list for this question; it is
a question about Debian's policy, but I am not certain that it is about
the type of policy which is covered by the debian-policy manual and thus
the type which is to be discussed here.
I have not been able to find a formal st
24 matches
Mail list logo
