Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700 with message-id <87o9rlx51o....@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs has caused the Debian Bug report #694384, regarding possibly allow initial blank lines in control files to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 694384: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694384 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.4.0 At present, 213 packages fail to build using pbuilder, because they contain a debian/control file starting with comment lines, then a blank line, then the actual contents. This is caused by gnome-pkg-tools, as described in further detail in #684503. At present, policy states (in 5.2) that blank lines separate paragraphs, comments are discarded, and that the *first* paragraph contains essential package information (Policy 5.2). This raises the question whether an empty paragraph *is a paragraph*. I had initiated some discussion on d-devel [1], with no uniform opinion about this. In order not to base any outcome on philosophical discussions, I suggest to consider RFC822 as the technical base: This defines a message as message = fields *( CRLF *text ) ; Everything after ; first null line ; is message body with blank lines (CRLF) only being permitted after the initial fields. Note that, however, apparently only pbuilder enforces such a strict interpretation. Other tools, including dpkg and lintian, appear to interpret the "first paragraph" as the "first non-empty paragraph." Many thanks, Michael [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/10/msg00026.htmlpgpv33LEXTDGA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org control: usertag -1 +obsolete control: tag -1 +wontfix Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and we are closing this bug as inactive. The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most frequent to least frequent: - issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be important enough to keep an open bug around; - issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion. A fresh discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the old bug are unlikely to help very much; or - issue is not appropriate for Policy. If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the discussion, you can re-open the bug. However, please consider instead opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian, and makes clear exactly what you think should change. A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages, and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what Debian Policy should say today. -- Sean Whittonsignature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---