Bug#1068192: debian-policy: extended forbidden network access to contrib and non-freeo

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 09:49:58PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2024-04-04 22:38, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:22:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > I'm not sure what I think about that. We have a general escape hatch > > > already for non-free packages in Policy

Bug#1068192: debian-policy: extended forbidden network access to contrib and non-free

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:58:37PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Hi, > > On 2024-04-03 12:37, Philipp Kern wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 06:58:35AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > On 2024-04-02 09:21, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > On Mon 01 Apr 2024 at

Bug#941198: In support of mandatory unit files

Am Samstag, den 07.12.2019, 17:12 -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Tobias Frost writes: > > > JFTR, I maintain gmedia-resurrect and in this package I failed > > despite > > trying to create a systemd unit file with equal functinality as the > > init.d script*. So

Bug#941198: In support of mandatory unit files

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 07:03:09PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > chiming in as I've been pointed to this bug: I agree with Ansgar in that > adding unit files does not hurt sysvinit support in the least, provided we > still get to ignore them. > > I'd even be in favour of making them

Bug#843966: developers-reference-fr: translation update

Am 18. November 2018 14:38:02 GMT+02:00 schrieb Holger Wansing : >Hi Jean-Paul and Tobias, (...) >@Tobias: maybe you received an answer from Jean-Paul via PM? No, I did not get a response > > >Holger

Bug#911650: [developers-reference] usage of dh_strip conflicts with debhelper documentation

Hi Josheph, On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:31:58PM -0700, Joseph Herlant wrote: > Package: developers-reference > Version: 3.4.21 > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > Based on the man page of dh_strip[1], "the `--dbg-package` option is a > now special purpose option that you normally do not need" which >

Bug#908867: developers-reference: Updated German translation

Control: tags -1 +pending MR has been merged.

Bug#907535: Let's start salvaging packages! -- draft text now available

Control: tags -1 pending Merge-Request has been merged.

Bug#818850: developers-reference: two chapters regarding the 'default' field

Source: developers-reference Followup-For: Bug #818850 Control: tags -1 patch MR: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/8 Please review and if necessary just edit in the MR (or let me know what you'd like to see changed) -- tobi -- System Information: Debian

Bug#907665: developers-reference: Section 6.7.9 about dbg packages outdated

Control: tags -1 patch I've wrote some kind of draft for the dbgsyms... Please make sure to review the language and conten ;-) (and edit directly in the MR if you want) MR https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/7 -- Cheers, tobi

Bug#908890: developers-reference: As alioth is gone, replace references to Salsa

Package: src:developers-reference Severity: normal Tags: patch I found during the translation to German that there are a few references to alioth, but at this service is no longer, those references needs updating. MR: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/6 Please

Bug#908867: developers-reference: Updated German translation

Package: src:developers-reference Version: 3.4.20 Severity: normal Tags: patch Please see the merge request https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/3 (As soon as the salvaging MR is merged, I will also translate this) Cheers, -- tobi -- System Information: Debian

Bug#907605: developers-reference: Alioth references in README-contrib

Control: tags -1 pending On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 08:20:19 +0200 Tobias Frost > > I've preaded this MR for it: > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/2 > MR is merged. (Thanks Raphaël!) -- tobi

Bug#879863: developer-reference conflicts with Policy on priority "extra" vs "optional"

Control: tags -1 pending MR has been merged.

Bug#907535: Let's start salvaging packages! -- draft text now available

Control: tags -1 patch Merge-Request: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/5 -- Tobi

Bug#907666: developers-reference: (partially) updating the German translations

Package: developers-reference-de Severity: minor Tags: patch Translating some previously untranslated sentences and checking other which were marked fuzzy. Note that this is not complete, poedit says there are still 115 tasks open... (I will time permitting, work a bit on them the next few days

Bug#907665: developers-reference: Section 6.7.9 about dbg packages outdated

Source: developers-reference Severity: normal Tags: patch As we now have Automatic Debug Symbol package, I think most of the section could be deleted and replaced to the references on the Wiki. The attached patch does that… -- tobi -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT

Bug#172892: best practices for CVS package handling

On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:59:30 +0900 Hideki Yamane wrote: > control: tags -1 wontfix > > Hi, > > Probably it was useful when reported in 2002, but we're in 2015 and > CVS was gone. so I'll tag wontfix for it. Should we just close the bug?

Bug#907605: developers-reference: Alioth references in README-contrib

Package: src:developers-reference Severity: minor Tags: patch Dear developers-reference maintainers, there is still a reference to alioth in the file README-contrib. I've preaded this MR for it: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/2 Cheers, -- tobi

Bug#907535: Let's start salvaging packages! -- draft text now available

Subject: developers-reference: Announcement for adding "Package Salvaging" process to dev-ref Source: developers-reference Severity: normal Dear dev-ref maintainers, as you've probably saw on -dev, I'm currently working to implement the Package Salvaging process. The discussion is still ongoing

Bug#884228: debian-policy: please add OFL-1.1 to common licenses

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:24:19AM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 at 22:24:23 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > > Am 29.12.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > > I had to split the game into four digestible pieces (which are in total > > 1.2 GB large). My original idea was to

Bug#737796: may be use the newly proposed License-grant field

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 02:15:54PM +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote: > Hi > > Since the licence text shown in the original report mention "At the > discretion > of the user of this library, this software may be licensed under the terms > of > ..." , I'm wondering if this would better fit in the

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

Am Freitag, den 04.08.2017, 22:46 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is > > > orphaned, and > > > gives permission to everyone to adopt the package immediately. > > > > So just

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: > > So

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

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

Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Christian Hofstaedtler: > * Julien Cristau [160708 15:31]: > > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a > > mailing list and no Uploaders field.  In cases where some package > > kind > > of fit within

Bug#768292: debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist [X-Debbugs-Cc: ftpmas...@debian.org because I know the Policy maintainers don't actually control what is or isn't acceptable in the archive in this respect.] Some packages currently have stanzas like this in their copyright files: License:

Re: Unclarity wrt unnamed licenses in debian/copyright / DEP5

On 24. September 2014 21:55:07 MESZ, Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl wrote: Hi Russ, The syntax requires some short name. I think it's fine to just use something arbitrary that passes the syntax check, like custom-license. That's what I do. I'll do that, then. Since I have two custom

System breakage because of unpurged package

Hi! Because of #459424, I am curious how/if this should be/is handled by dependencies: A package broke the system. A Suggestion of this packages conflictes with an older version of this suggestion. However, the older version had been removed previously, so the conflict is technically resolved.

Bug#402721: debian-policy: WISHLIST Please make clear, that conflicts should only be used when really necessary

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.7.2.2 Severity: wishlist Looking at #262257, as an exampple, there are packages which declares conflicts for whatever reason. However, the reason is NOT, that thec packages could not co-existent on the same system (For the example, retchmail could be also