Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.6.0
Dear developers,
To reduce clutter in the BTS log, I am opening a new bug for the second half of
the proposal "Document media type declarations" by Charles Plessy in #707851,
since I did not find specific objections registered about it.
I join the patch. T
Bill Allombert writes:
> To reduce clutter in the BTS log, I am opening a new bug for the second
> half of the proposal "Document media type declarations" by Charles
> Plessy in #707851, since I did not find specific objections registered
> about it.
This is a good idea. Thank you for doing thi
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:42:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Now, if you like to move forward with this issue, I would suggest you start
> to split it in smaller chunks, where consensus would be easier to find.
In the spirit of that, I have spun off the Media types declarations part of
the pr
Control: clone 732445 -2
Control: reassign -2 developers-reference
Control: retitle -2 developers-reference should encourage verification of
upstream cryptographic signatures
Control: retitle 732445 debian-policy should encourage verification of upstream
cryptographic signatures
Hi Bill--
On Sa
Processing control commands:
> clone 732445 -2
Bug #732445 [debian-policy] debian-policy should encourage verification of
upstream cryptographic signaturse
Bug 732445 cloned as bug 742552
> reassign -2 developers-reference
Bug #742552 [debian-policy] debian-policy should encourage verification of
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:53:57PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Hello Charles,
>
> On 02.02.2014 14:00, Charles Plessy wrote:
> [...]
> > I think that the absence of a feature in the Debian Policy is not a good
> > justification for refusing a patch that is not invasive and does not require
> >
Le Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:31:59AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>
> This is just one mail among other in favor of keeping the section about the
> Debian menu system in the policy document, which have been overlooked.
Hello Bill,
later in the discussion, in message #345, about the patch that w
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> You're quite right about my original bug report having been premature
> and over-specific for debian-policy; sorry about that. The current
> preferred location is now debian/upstream/signing-key.pgp (binary form)
> or debian/upstream/signing-key.asc (ascii-armored).
On 03/24/2014 07:51 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm curious -- why do we have two different supported paths? At least in
> my experience the ASCII-armored key is much easier to deal with, since you
> don't have to configure dpkg to allow binary files in the debian
> directory. I'm not sure that I s
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> I'd be happy to see us settle on one single location, and if folks think
> that the .asc version is the better option, updating lintian to nag
> about the other ones until they go away seems doable before we freeze
> for jessie. I'll even file patches or do NMUs for
Hi!
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 16:51:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I use:
>
> gpg --export --armor --export-options export-minimal \
> > debian/upstream/signing-key.asc
>
> to generate this file for my packages.
I've been using pgp-clean (signing-party), which seems to generate
even s
11 matches
Mail list logo
