Hi!
Reply follows inline,
Mattia Rizzolo writes:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 01:20:14PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> In that case, returning to Mattia's patch, it is probably not correct to
>> say that the source Description is relevant for all binary packages,
>> because perhaps the substvar is
Hi,
Sean Whitton writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun 25 Oct 2020 at 09:40PM -04, Joe Nahmias wrote:
>
>> Is this truly the case that all that's needed is a new patch? Can we get
>> an official ACK from one of the policy editors? I'd be happy to re-write
>> the original patch to apply against HEAD if tha
On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 12:02:11AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi Elana,
>
> Elana Hashman wrote:
>
> > NEWS.Debian files are listed in the "unofficial policy"[1] but not in
> > the official policy.
> >
> > It seems this was proposed in 2002[2], but in 2003, folks were
> > hesitant to "[get]
Hi Sean,
Sean Whitton writes:
> Hello Nicholas,
>
> I am not sure what is going on with your (1), (2) and (3). Perhaps you
> could propose your change in the form of a patch.
>
Those numbers refer to annotations in the quoted portion. IIRC you're
also using notmuch mode, so
[ x more citati
Sean Whitton writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 10:29AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> How about:
>>
>> [1] This field should only be used when there are license or DFSG
>> requirements to retain the referenced source package. [2] It should not
>> be added solely as a way to l
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:53:31AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 07 Nov 2019 at 04:51PM -05, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > I suggest replacing the whole sentence with "The purpose of this field
> > is exclusively for cases where a package's license, o
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.1
Severity: normal
The full sentence in question is "This field should not be added
solely for purposes other than satisfying license or DFSG requirements
to provide full source code".
"solely for purposes other than satisfying" is the problematic
constructio
Control: retitle -1 developer-reference conflicts with Policy on priority
"extra" vs "optional"
Control: severity -1 important
Control: tags -1 patch
Merge request filed here:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/1
Bumping priority because it contradicts a "shoul
Package: developers-reference
Severity: normal
"Also, it is recommended to adjust its section to oldlibs and its
priority to extra in order to ease deborphan's job." (
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-transition
)
When I followed this recommen
9 matches
Mail list logo
