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

Adrian Bunk writes: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Adrian Bunk writes: >>> Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired >>> maintainer would be very bad. >> I agree, but that's not directly relevant

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired > > maintainer would be very bad. > > I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking about >

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:16:30PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > > > proponents: What does

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

Adrian Bunk writes: > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired > maintainer would be very bad. I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking about team-maintained packages. The whole *point* of team maintenance is that

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:11:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Tobias Frost writes: > > > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have > > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a > > lot "team maintained" packages where the

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

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not, > > actually give others? Are they

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: >... > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not, > actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons > privately when

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not, > actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons > privately when emails

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:04:17PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > […] > Thanks for putting my thoughts (again!) into better words than I ever > could! +1 > > (I am entirely in favor of giving the MIA team more actual power.) > (Me too.

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy. > > > > This would not be "a purely informative change". > > > > Your suggested wording has

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

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:25:32 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: Thanks for your long and elaborate email. Unfortunately I find myself disagreeing with your two main points: > I wonder whether we are framing this in the right way anyway. There > are two orthogonal questions in my mind: > - is a

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

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Tobias Frost writes: > > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have > > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a > > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did

Re: Commits fixing #835520 delete some sections

Sean Whitton writes: > These commits entirely delete some sections. Do we need to update > references, or is it okay to have the old numbers in section id fields, > with docbook renumbering the sections in the output formats? > Please let me know how this has been

Bug#835520: Seconding nine patches & seeking seconds for two more

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:31:43PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > What I tried to do was to update the description to "current" *sysvinit* > standards. (Where "current" means several releases ago. Don't remember > when we made insserv/startpar non-optional in Debian but it was > definitely

Bug#835520: Seconding nine patches & seeking seconds for two more

Hello Sean Whitton, On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached > the diff to which my second applies. > > The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use > debhelper. This

Processed (with 1 error): forcibly merging 687900 749826

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > forcemerge 687900 749826 Bug #687900 [debian-policy] document multiarch Bug #749826 [debian-policy] debian-policy: [multiarch] please document the use of Multi-Arch field in debian/control 842059 was blocked by: 687900 842059 was not blocking

Bug#291148: marked as done (status action for init.d scripts)

Your message dated Thu, 3 Aug 2017 15:48:59 -0400 with message-id <20170803194858.mbl7kjh3shsyz...@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Re: Bug#291148: 'status' option should be required of init.d scripts has caused the Debian Bug report #291148, regarding status action for init.d scripts to be

Bug#54138: marked as done (pre-removal scripts fail when /etc/init.d/* stop fails)

Your message dated Thu, 3 Aug 2017 15:35:46 -0400 with message-id <20170803193546.nsi6p5iecds2w...@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Re: Bug#54138: pre-removal scripts fail when /etc/init.d/* stop fails has caused the Debian Bug report #54138, regarding pre-removal scripts fail when

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

On 08/03/2017 08:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > >> Do the MIA team also track MIA teams? > >> My concern is that packages without maintainers may go unnoticed when >> none of its previously active maintainers were tracked individually. > >> For such

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

Tobias Frost writes: > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did not recognize that the > (sole) Uploader wasn't there anymore

Processed: tagging 835520

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 835520 + pending Bug #835520 [debian-policy] Policy 9.3.1 is inaccurate to the point of being harmful Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 835520:

Commits fixing #835520 delete some sections

Hello, I just pushed commits fixing #835520; I am currently working on the upgrading checklist entry. These commits entirely delete some sections. Do we need to update references, or is it okay to have the old numbers in section id fields, with docbook renumbering the sections in the output

Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

Sean Whitton writes: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: >> P.S. Just in case this is an oversight, rather than an intentional >> change: >> >> Shouldn't "desktop entry" and "Debian menu entry" be somehow >> emphasised, to make it clear

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

Am Donnerstag, den 03.08.2017, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Sean Whitton: > Hello Tobias, > > Thank you for writing about this bug from the MIA team's perspective, > which is very relevant to resolving this. > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:44:36AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > > Some remarks / questions I

Bug#835520: Seconding nine patches & seeking seconds for two more

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached > the diff to which my second applies. > > The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use > debhelper. This is a first for policy,

Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > You appear to have a singular/plural mismatch with: > > installs a FreeDesktop desktop entries > > I guess that should instead be: > > installs FreeDesktop desktop entries > > (or perhaps it should be singular throughout, I'm

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

Hello Tobias, Thank you for writing about this bug from the MIA team's perspective, which is very relevant to resolving this. On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:44:36AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > Some remarks / questions I do not see adressed: > - If you have not a name on some task human nature tends

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy. > > This would not be "a purely informative change". > > Your suggested wording has the potential to create a HUGE amount of tensions. You're right. After

Bug#835520: Seconding nine patches & seeking seconds for two more

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached > the diff to which my second applies. > > The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use > debhelper. This is a first for policy, which up to

Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

Hi Sean, Sean Whitton writes: > control: tag -1 +patch > > Hello tech-ctte, > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:53:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: >> So yes, point 2 corresponds to your: >> > - delete that paragraph >> > - add a new paragraph saying "if there is a

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

Bill Allombert writes: > The patch also remove the requirement to list individual email of the > maintainers. That is what I am objecting to. Oh, okay, I see that, but I'm not sure why. What is the purpose of listing those email addresses that you want to preserve? > When

Bug#835520: Seconding nine patches & seeking seconds for two more

gregor herrmann writes: > On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:55:30 -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: >> I've spoken to h01ger and gregoa IRL and they say that they missed the >> magic word "should" which is what makes debhelper required by these >> patches. So I'm seeking seconds for the

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

Hi Sean, On Do 03 Aug 2017 17:35:59 CEST, Sean Whitton wrote: control: tag -1 +patch Hello Santiago, Mike, On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: Yes, indeed! Great, I'm happy we figured that out. I believe that my previous patch does indeed answer the concern

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

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

control: tag -1 +patch Hello Santiago, Mike, On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Yes, indeed! Great, I'm happy we figured that out. I believe that my previous patch does indeed answer the concern you've raised. So once again, I'm seeking seconds for that patch.

Processed: tagging 835520

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 835520 + patch Bug #835520 [debian-policy] Policy 9.3.1 is inaccurate to the point of being harmful Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #835520 to the same tags previously set > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you

Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

control: tag -1 +patch Hello tech-ctte, On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:53:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > So yes, point 2 corresponds to your: > > - delete that paragraph > > - add a new paragraph saying "if there is a desktop file, there should > > be no menu file" > [...] > That said,

Processed: Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +patch Bug #839172 [debian-policy] TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet Added tag(s) patch. -- 839172: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839172 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

HI Sean, On Do 03 Aug 2017 17:06:19 CEST, Sean Whitton wrote: Hello Russ, On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 11:54:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I like solution (a), honestly. I think we could just add backslash as an escape character that escapes anything other than a newline and have the problem

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

Hello Russ, On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 11:54:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I like solution (a), honestly. I think we could just add backslash as an > escape character that escapes anything other than a newline and have the > problem basically go away. It would require a new version of the

Bug#835520: Seconding nine patches & seeking seconds for two more

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:55:30 -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > I've spoken to h01ger and gregoa IRL and they say that they missed the > magic word "should" which is what makes debhelper required by these > patches. So I'm seeking seconds for the following replacement for > Andreas' 5th and 8th

Bug#835520: Seconding nine patches & seeking seconds for two more

Hello, I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached the diff to which my second applies. The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use debhelper. This is a first for policy, which up to now only comments that using debhelper is "easiest". I've

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

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:41:07PM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > > > > 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

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:30:11PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Bill Allombert writes: > > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean

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

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Bill Allombert writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > > >> I've also included a purely informative

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

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 the QA team. This is > already current best

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

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > 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

Processed: Re: Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 debian-policy 4.0.0.4 Bug #839172 [tech-ctte] TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet Bug reassigned from package 'tech-ctte' to 'debian-policy'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #839172 to the same values previously

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

Am 2. August 2017 23:48:15 MESZ schrieb Sean Whitton : >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