Re: missing recommends are not RC severity

Holger Levsen writes: > dropping -devel@, adding -release@ and -policy@, I'm wondering if this > should be resolved somehow...: > A few days ago I wrote: >> > >if your package recommends a package which is not available, this is a >> > >normal bug, not one with RC

Re: missing recommends are not RC severity

hi, dropping -devel@, adding -release@ and -policy@, I'm wondering if this should be resolved somehow...: A few days ago I wrote: > > >if your package recommends a package which is not available, this is a > > >normal bug, not one with RC severity (and neither an important one). To which on

Bug#850156: Please firmly deprecate vendor-specific series files [and 1 more messages]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 21:11:11 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > The examples given are for series.ubuntu, which is certainly the case I've > seen in the wild. Ubuntu, as a project, did not ask for this. As an Ubuntu > developer, it has never benefitted me. I have only ever seen it used by >

Bug#850156: Please firmly deprecate vendor-specific series files

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 08:00:28 +, Mike Gabriel wrote: > One example, where the vendor.series file is really helpful is: > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mate/mate-terminal.git/tree/debian/patches/2001_fix-find-next-previous.patch That one-line change could easily be guarded by #ifdef

Bug#850156: Please firmly deprecate vendor-specific series files

Hi, On Do 19 Apr 2018 06:29:42 CEST, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Mike Gabriel wrote: > This feature is a very bad idea. I can see why people thought it > might be nice: it means you can use the same (or very similar) .dsc > (and perhaps vcs history) on