Disclaimer: the below is a half-baked long-term proposal for a process
change. If you're wondering about how to do useful work today, please
ignore it. But comments welcome.
Hi,
My experience has been that the policy process works pretty well when
a policy delegate is involved in the discussion
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> On the other hand, if you are saying that packagers should not wait
> for any official pronouncement to implement whatever
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=verbose/quiet option they please, then I would agree
> with you. xz-utils has supported DEB_BUILD_OPTION
Charles Plessy wrote:
> it seems to me that the best way to materialise a consensus for a release goal
> is to actually get it listed in http://release.debian.org/wheezy/goals.txt and
> have the work started. This will protect the Policy from documenting options
> that are not implemented. In li
Le Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:06:05AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
>
> > I think that the best way to see which of verbose or noverbose is to be
> > chosen
> > would be to go through the soft release goal or release recommendation that
> > Matthias advocated. Once the mayonnaise thickens (once
Hi Charles,
Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that the best way to see which of verbose or noverbose is to be chosen
> would be to go through the soft release goal or release recommendation that
> Matthias advocated. Once the mayonnaise thickens (once the recommendation is
> followed), then it wil
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 628515 normative discussion
thanks
Le Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 04:39:33AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
> Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * Jonathan Nieder , 2011-11-26, 18:37:
>
> [...]
> >> I do not suspect there is a
> >> consensus for this.
> >
> > Why do
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was ple...@debian.org).
> usertags 633994 normative discussion
Bug#633994: debian-policy: confusion over what the license information in the
copyright file
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 633994 normative discussion
block 633994 by 462996
thanks
Le Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:06:44AM +, Nicholas Bamber a écrit :
>
> So the usage I was complaining about squeezed the upstream license
> information into the short license and the Debian
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> ##Le Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> ##
> ## I will update the patch or remove the patch tag according to the answers
> # Removing misleading patch tag, and using correct user for usertags.
> user debian-pol...@pa
Would I agree to merging #633994 with #462996?
Hmm. Possibly. I think my issue is a subset of #462996. So it depends if
my question is narrow enough that it can be settled separately.
I read #462996 as a request that Debian policy should get as close as
possible to an expression of what the FTP m
Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Jonathan Nieder , 2011-11-26, 18:37:
[...]
>> I do not suspect there is a
>> consensus for this.
>
> Why do you think there is not?
I was guessing, it seems incorrectly, based on the lack of seconds
or other discussion on this policy proposal.
>> Some maintainers enjoy read
* Jonathan Nieder , 2011-11-26, 18:37:
Matthias Klose wrote:
It's always interesting to look at build logs, or to receive bug
reports of the form
CC
or
CCLD
without knowing how the compiler or the linker were called. Maybe it
is convenient for a package maintainer watching the build
12 matches
Mail list logo
