Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

Bill Allombert writes: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: >> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that >> packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphaned >> properly, with their maintainer field set to

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > Here is an updated diff for this bug, against the docbook version of > the policy manual. > > I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that > packages that are team maintained in name only should be

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

Hello, Here is an updated diff for this bug, against the docbook version of the policy manual. I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphaned properly, with their maintainer field set to the QA team. This is

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

> > So yes at any time they are a number of active, hard-working team, but there > also a larger number of phantom team that used to be active, but whose > packages are still maintained in Debian. It is important they carry some > valid information about the effective maintainers. > What are

Bug#835451: debian-policy: Building as root should be discouraged

Hi Santiago, On Mi 02 Aug 2017 19:15:28 CEST, Santiago Vila wrote: On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:52:59AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: control: tag -1 -patch Hello again Santiago, Some of us here at DebCamp have been reading your message and we're still not sure of your intention. On Thu, Aug

Bug#835520: Andreas Henriksson's 11 patches are awesome

On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 18:57:03 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > $ git log master..for-holger --oneline -11 > a8e08d5 Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 11/11] Drop entire section 9.4 Console messages > from init.d scripts > dfa8fae Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 10/11] Add reference to systemd integration > examples >

Bug#835520: Andreas Henriksson's 11 patches are awesome

hi, $ git log master..for-holger --oneline -11 a8e08d5 Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 11/11] Drop entire section 9.4 Console messages from init.d scripts dfa8fae Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 10/11] Add reference to systemd integration examples 658c3c2 Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 09/11] Drop obsolete paragraph about

Bug#809637: debian/copyright checks fail on upstream filenames containing blanks

Sean Whitton writes: > On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 10:49:04AM +, Mike Gabriel wrote: >> At the moment, we are not able to exactly specify file paths of >> files/folders containing blanks in debian/copyright when complying with >> the DEP-5 specs. (I agree that it is

Bug#835451: debian-policy: Building as root should be discouraged

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:52:59AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 -patch > > Hello again Santiago, > > Some of us here at DebCamp have been reading your message and we're > still not sure of your intention. > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:41:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > >

Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

On 01-Aug-2017, Sean Whitton wrote: > codesearch.debian.net suggests that this field is now used in quite > a few packages. It seems reasonable to add a description of its use > to the copyright format. Thank you for bringing that to this discussion. > I have some questions about Ben's patch: >

Processed: Re: Bug#835451: debian-policy: Building as root should be discouraged

Processing control commands: > tag -1 -patch Bug #835451 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Building as root should be discouraged Removed tag(s) patch. -- 835451: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=835451 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#835451: debian-policy: Building as root should be discouraged

control: tag -1 -patch Hello again Santiago, Some of us here at DebCamp have been reading your message and we're still not sure of your intention. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:41:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Debian Policy 4.9 says: > > For some packages, notably ones where the same source

Bug#809637: debian/copyright checks fail on upstream filenames containing blanks

On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 10:49:04AM +, Mike Gabriel wrote: > At the moment, we are not able to exactly specify file paths of > files/folders containing blanks in debian/copyright when complying with the > DEP-5 specs. (I agree that it is indeed uncommon as a developer to use > blanks in

Bug#835451: debian-policy: Building as root should be discouraged

control: tag -1 +patch Hello Santiago, On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:41:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > We should better avoid building packages as root (including fakeroot). > > Otherwise we will find nasty surprises like the libtool Bug #806654, > where a badly written debian/rules made the

Processed: Re: Bug#835451: debian-policy: Building as root should be discouraged

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +patch Bug #835451 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Building as root should be discouraged Added tag(s) patch. -- 835451: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=835451 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#589671: Required package set can be fully usable

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +pending Bug #589671 [debian-policy] Required package set can be fully usable Added tag(s) pending. -- 589671: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=589671 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#589671: Required package set can be fully usable

control: tag -1 +pending On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05:39PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > How about just simplifying it to the following, without making any > suggestions about its further usability. Describe in a factual way > what it is, and leaves it to the reader to decide on whether they >

Bug#485776: Your maintscript flowcharts

Dear Marga, On the wiki[1] you say that your maintainer script diagrams are "GPL". Does this mean GPL-2+, GPL_3+, or something else? I'm planning to include this diagrams in the Debian Policy manual directly. Thanks. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/MaintainerScripts -- Sean Whitton

Bug#846970: debian-policy: Proposal for a Build-Indep-Architecture: control file field

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:56:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:47:47PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > 1. Debian does not currently have non-amd64 binary-all autobuilders > > > > Stating that binary-all packages in the archive are always being > > built on amd64 would