Sean Whitton writes:
> On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 11:47PM +02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Sean Whitton (2021-08-12):
>>> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 08:41AM -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
So, it seems fairly obvious to me that Standards-Version is important
for packages that produce both debs and udebs.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Guillem Jover writes:
> This was brought up on debian-devel, and I think it needs to be
> updated/corrected in the policy manual:
> On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 12:21:11 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 11:12:50 +0100, Ansgar wrote:
>>> Policy states:
>>> "Removing a required
Your message dated Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:14:24 -0700
with message-id <8735cmiswv@hope.eyrie.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#908933: debian-policy: typo in document in section 3.4
page no 15 line number 16 needs improvement.
has caused the Debian Bug report #908933,
regarding debian-policy: typo
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Your message dated Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:10:58 -0700
with message-id <877d1yit2l@hope.eyrie.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#531207: initscripts: modes of execution for services
has caused the Debian Bug report #531207,
regarding initscripts: modes of execution for services
to be marked as done.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 1020323 debian-policy
Bug #1020323 [src:debian-policy] debian-policy: document DPKG_ROOT
Bug reassigned from package 'src:debian-policy' to 'debian-policy'.
No longer marked as found in versions debian-policy/4.6.1.1.
Ignoring request to
Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes:
> * where to document this? Other variables set for maintainer scripts
>like DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE or DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_ARCH do not seem to
>be documented either even though (according to codesearch.d.n) they
>are used in hundreds of places
Ansgar writes:
> There is an updated version (RFC 5322) that should be used instead.
> Notably RFC 5322 is more restrictive on the local part (whitespace and
> escape sequences are no longer allowed except as obsolete syntax).
> Furthermore RFC 6532 extends RFC 5322 and allows non-ascii-UTF-8
Source: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.1.1
Severity: wishlist
User: debian-d...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: dpkg-root-support
X-Debbugs-Cc: jo...@debian.org, debian-cr...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
in [1] Russ asked us to submit a policy bug about DPKG_ROOT so here it
goes. :)
[1]
control: tag -1 + pending
Hello,
On Sun 18 Sep 2022 at 07:53PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
>
>> Section 11.8.4 "Packages providing a window manager" still references
>> the Debian menu. But the Debian menu is deprecated.
>
>> I suggest to remove the reference, for example with
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + pending
Bug #975631 [debian-policy] debian-policy: window manager: remove reference to
Debian menu
Added tag(s) pending.
--
975631: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=975631
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with
Hi!
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 17:34:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
> > On Mon 19 Sep 2022 at 12:45AM +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> So, personally, I'd be happy to fully switch to stanza TBH, because it
> >> seems more specific to our use, probably easier to search for, and
>
Russ Allbery writes:
> The killer features of YAML for the purposes of the copyright format are
> the > and | symbols after a key, which let you write paragraphs of text
> afterwards with normal structural indentation and full editor support
> for wrapping and the like, and you can choose
Guillem Jover writes:
> I think Disclaimer and Comment do not seem as problematic because they
> tend to contain descriptive prose. For Source it's true that it's weird
> as it seems to indeed want to have two different semantics depending on
> the content, and considering the current deb822
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 06:01:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Yes, we should distinguish between formatted text with synopsis and
>> formatted text without synopsis more clearly. Or, you know, just
>> propose a new YAML format which would make it trivial to clean up
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 06:01:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
>
> > Oh! I've completely missed this all this time, I think because that
> > feels very weird given that it has no synopsis and the text is added
> > already on the first line on the spec. :/
>
> Other
19 matches
Mail list logo
