On 03/06/10 03:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org writes:
That would make the name different from what's in my GPG key, but I
suppose I could add an additional name to the key... Note my email From
address doesn't have the comma or full stop, because I find the
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 10:42:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here is proposed wording, which hopefully reflects the subsequent
discussion. I'm looking for seconds.
[...]
Seconded.
Thanks! That's two, so I'm merging for the next release.
--
Russ
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
suggested by Steve Langasek for maintainer scripts to abort for
high-priority
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 00:06:39 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
From a comment somewhere else I think you understand it now, but anyway
just to make sure, it allows adding new architectures in dpkg w/o
needing to recreate the source package from its
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org writes:
Yeah, I suppose that goes without saying. I seem to go into the
details a bit too much.
Final version with the nonzero thing removed. I'm looking for seconds.
This is now merged for the next Policy release.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 12:51:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes:
what does this change mean for essential packages that want to prompt
the user when debconf isn't available? E.g. libc6.postinst tries to use
debconf, and if that's not available and
Hi!
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:34:32 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm looking for seconds or further discussion if people don't believe that
this is the right direction to go.
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index af00c0e..3f6b82d 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -3557,15
Hi!
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:56:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, here's another try at this patch that removes some extraneous
information that it sounds like we shouldn't get into, from this message
and your other message, and tries to simplify the wording to address the
issue raised in
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:56:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
p
In the main filedebian/control/file file in the source
-package, this field may contain the special value
-ttany/tt, the special value ttall/tt, or a list of
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 13:09:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:56:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
p
In the main filedebian/control/file file in the source
- package, this field may contain the special value
-
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
suggested by Steve
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 22:01 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:56:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, here's another try at this patch that removes some extraneous
information that it sounds like we shouldn't get into, from this message
and your other message, and
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 09:56:30AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, here's another try at this patch that removes some extraneous
information that it sounds like we shouldn't get into, from this message
and your other message, and tries to simplify the wording to address the
issue raised in
Le Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:16:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
If someone put this into SGML, I'd second it.
I also like the idea, so I prepared a patch (attached)
Cheers,
--
Charles
From f1c872817b2787f18f0a8f7019274f1be49e2a4c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Charles Plessy
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 09:34:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm looking for seconds or further discussion if people don't believe that
this is the right direction to go.
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index af00c0e..3f6b82d 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -3557,15
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I also like the idea, so I prepared a patch (attached)
Thank you!
RFC 822 dates use only two digits for the years, but Debian changelogs
described by this paragraph (§4.4 in Policy 3.8.4) use four digits.
This patch replaces the reference to the RFC
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 18:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I also like the idea, so I prepared a patch (attached)
Thank you!
RFC 822 dates use only two digits for the years, but Debian changelogs
described by this paragraph (§4.4 in Policy 3.8.4)
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
+ exampleday-of-week, dd month hh:mm:ss +/example
+ where:
+ list compact=compact
+ itemday-of week is one of: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat,
Sun/item
+ itemdd is a one- or two-digit day of the month
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
+ exampleday-of-week, dd month hh:mm:ss +/example
+ where:
+ list compact=compact
+itemday-of week is one of: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat,
Sun/item
+itemdd is a
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
Yes, dpkg-source will reject such package. The check has always been
there, it just never got relaxed when introducing the generic wildcard
support. This is the actual error when using as value for example “any
linux-any”:
dpkg-source: error:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
suggested by Steve Langasek for
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org writes:
I would like to see all the packages use DESTDIR so that the patch
could be removed. As a first step, lintian was recently changed to warn
about overriding PREFIX. See #568748 and
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
28 matches
Mail list logo
