On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:39:55PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
> > Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
> Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
> should have come from the TC, not the DPL.
> Dear Secretary, what do you think?
>
Hia,
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Furthermore, I don't think this delegation declaration is
> constitutionally appropriate. The policy editors are, primarily,
> maintainers of a package.
>
Indeed, there's potentially an issue here that the constitution states
(8.3) "
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that if you want to change the NMU procedures described in
> dev-ref, you should at least discuss the proposals in a similar forum
> than the one where the current recommendations were discussed, i.e
> debian-devel@ or debian
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:31:20PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Didier Raboud (04/05/2011):
> > The proposed wording doesn't imply this IMHO; I read it as "if you
> > can't find an action from the maintainer on the buglog in the last 7
> > days, you can 0-day NMU".
> >
> > What we want is more
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:58:57AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 03/05/11 at 15:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I agree that the resulting wording of patch is suboptimal, and that
> > recommending 0-day NMUs is not the way to go. We are rarely in need for
> > action in less than a couple of
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:57:13AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:22:46PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> >
> > Yes. If a maintainer is taking more that for a *RC* bug fix, then they
> > *should* keep the buglog updated with status.
>
> Tal
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:11:07PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Neil McGovern , 2011-05-03, 13:25:
> >+Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days, without
> >maintainer activity for 7 days: 0 days
> >+
> >+
> >+
> >+
>
> Oh dear, pleas
Package: developers-reference
Tags: patch
Hi,
As announced in the recent mail[0], please find attached a patch to
dev-ref changing the NMU policy.
Thanks,
Neil
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html
--
dpkg: shut up
No, I won't, and you can't make me. :P
hah.
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> Full ack, and I even like /usr/share/www. It's easy to understand and
> pretty unprobable that we'd have a package called www in the archive
> some day needing this location.
>
Sorry, I have to disagree with this approach. We woul
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:34:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Would you like to take a crack at pulling out the normative
> parts of that manual, perhaps with a wee bit of rationale, and see
> where we stand?
>
That would be great, thanks!
Neil
--
What is a sane place to look f
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi policy folks,
We've now got to the stage where we seem to have a good webapps policy
in place, and would like to have it included in policy main as a
'sub-policy' document.
For reference, it's at
http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/
Th
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 08:08:45PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 22:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...]
> > With this patch applied, I think that these bugs are now moot, but I
> > wanted to check before closing them. Is there any further work required
> > in britney to t
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:03:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In the interest of getting *something* into Policy, even if it doesn't
> give us everything that we want, I'm inclined to accept Colin's suggestion
> and exempt cases where upstream intends the code to be embedded and not
> used as a s
I think we've got consensus, and certainly a couple of seconds to the
final draft of this item now.
Any objections before this can go in?
Neil
--
int getRandomNumber() {
return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll. guaranteed to be random.
}
// http://xkcd.com/c221.html
signature.asc
Description
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:22:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Perhaps "common code" or "duplicated code" instead of "shared code", to
> > avoid ambiguity wrt shared libraries?
>
> How about "duplicated code"? New patch:
>
Looks good here.
Nei
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 03:43:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is one of the things that was discussed at the Policy BoF at DebConf,
> and Manoj and I would both like to start adding it. In the future, we'll
> be doing so in a new format that allows rationale to be tagged separately
> and ma
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:36:51AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Some software packages include in their distribution convenience
> copies of libraries from other software packages, generally so that
> users compiling from source don't have to download multiple packages.
> Debian pac
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:54:31PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Updated :)
> 1) "this library is already packaged in Debian":
Removed
> 2) "Optionally ... should not" seems internally inconsistent.
Changed to:
> "Preferably,... should not"
> But I certainly lift my objection.
>
Great :) Not s
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:33:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Any suggestions for improved wording?
>
> If this is that what you want, then I will certainly not object, but the
> current draft seems to imply something else. Especially the expected
> meaning of package does not seems to capt
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:27:43PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:59:12PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > I second Neil's proposal from Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:49:58, i.e. the
> > latest version.
>
> and I have to object to it because the proposal seems to mix build-time
>
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 07:51:22PM -, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:10 pm, "Shaun Jackman" wrote:
> > On a stable Debian system, system-wide upgrades can be far between. I
> > prefer to give the user a choice of whether to use the update system
> > provided by the upstream author to upd
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:31:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 01:03 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
> > are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
> > removed portion
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:57:47AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:24:22AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> > We want to avoid packages shipping their own versions of libraries,
> > as then if a security problem or major bug is discovered in that
> &g
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:04:20PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > + Embedding code provided in other packages
> > > > +
> > > > + A
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:16:47AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:49:58AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > --- policy.sgml
> > +++ policy.sgml
> > @@ -2105,6 +2105,14 @@
> > the file to the list in debian/files.
> >
> >
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 05:30:10PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:45:39AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > I'm including a patch that adds a should not to policy.
> >
>
> Now updated, removed C-ism and fix some typos.
>
And this t
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:45:39AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> I'm including a patch that adds a should not to policy.
>
Now updated, removed C-ism and fix some typos.
I'm not sure we can say libraries instead of files, as some programs
embed bits of libraries, instead of the
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi all,
I'm including a patch that adds a should not to policy.
Title: Embedding code provided in other packages
Synopsis: Packages should not include or embed code that is available in
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 11:39:03AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 23 July 2006 11:25, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I don't see /var/www mentioned in FHS, and we have bunch of web-based
> > > applications (think of whatever www-based admin packag
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:40:06AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> > a note to the debian-policy folks: you may or may not be aware that
> > we've done a significant amount of work regarding drafting a comprehensive
> > and sensible poli
and criticisms.
I'm holding a BoF at DebConf6 to hopefully hammer out some of the last
remaining issues (if any still exist). My aim is to start introducing
this after the Etch release to provide a nice timeline to get packages
to use this policy.
Cheers,
Neil McGovern
[0] [EMAIL PROTECTE
good plug :)
If you would like to join in, please come help. As well as the policy,
we're creating some helper applications to do tasks such as the
registering of a webapp with a webserver, database table creation etc.
Regards
Neil McGovern
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-webapps
http
Many apologies,
I was going to cc this to debian-policy too.
- Forwarded message from Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:32:35 +0100
From: Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: PHP/WebApp policy/mailing
34 matches
Mail list logo
