Hi,
The packages debian-policy and packaging manual have been
imported into CVS on cvs.debian.org; and new versions have been
uploaded that set the maintainer address to the policy mailing list
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have to finish some adminstrative work invilved in getting
the other maintainers access to the reposirtory, but that should be
routine.
I guess now is the time for the policy list to start loking at
the buglist, retitling the wishlist/proposals, and fixing the real
bugs, etc. I guess the [Fixed in NMU update] bugs can now be closed.
manoj
who expects to see a rash of cleanups now that there is a process in
place
Normal bugs - outstanding:
(List of all such bugs is available.)
* #7890: Policy manual contradicts itself about including docs or not.
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Santiago Vila Doncel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 548 days old.
* #11094: debian-policy: Missing UUCP-locking info
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 425
days old.
* #17524: Requesting new bug severity level "fixed"
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Christian Schwarz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 222 days old.
* #20373: shouldn't start init scripts in wrong runlevel
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 161 days old.
* #21185: lintian: Lintian gripes about Changelog.html
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: "Scott K. Ellis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 144 days old.
* #21585: xntp3: /etc/init.d/xntp3 not a conffile anymore
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 135 days old.
* #21820: bug in debian-emacs-policy.gz example script
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Matthias Klose
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 131 days old.
* #21875: /etc/news/server or /etc/nntpserver ?
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Santiago Vila
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 130 days old.
* #21969: debian-policy: needs clarification about Standards-Version
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Santiago Vila
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 128 days old.
* #22308: bug reports against policy
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Raul Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 119 days old.
* #22935: Do not make hardlinks to conffiles
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 101 days old.
* #23003: [Fixed in NMU 2.4.1.2] HTML in debian-policy is incomplete
in several sections
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: David Huggins-Daines
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; merged with #23408; 99 days old.
* #23355: On closing of bugs
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Martin Schulze
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 89 days old.
* #23408: [Fixed in NMU 2.4.1.2] debian-policy:
/usr/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch3.html is truncated
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Thomas Roessler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; merged with #23003; 87 days old.
* #23661: Security issue when accessing documentation through an
http server
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Martin Stjernholm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 80 days old.
* #24067: Is it ok to close a bug without fixing it?
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Santiago Vila
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 69 days old.
* #24133: Suggestion to use
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Francesco Potorti`
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 67 days old.
* #24695: Dependency issue of the manpages
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Keita Maehara
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 51 days old.
* #24772: debian-policy: mailboxes with perm 660
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 48 days old.
* #25385: debian-policy: please add new architecture.
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 33 days
old.
* #25911: Policy 5.5 (Log files) should be moved
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ian Jackson); 18 days old.
* #26159: contact address for virtual package name list
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Adam P. Harris); 11 days old.
* #26402: packaging manual needs clarification about conffiles
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Santiago Vila
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
* #26461: debian-policy: obolete reference to /usr/doc/copyright
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: "Carl R. Witty"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
If you have received a letter inviting you to speak at the dedication
of a new cat hospital, and you hate cats, your reply, declining the
invitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full range of your
emotions. You must make it clear that you will not attend, but you
do not have to let fly at cats. The writer of the letter asked a
civil question; attack cats, then, only if you can do so with good
humor, good taste, and in such a way that your answer will be
courteous as well as responsive. Since you are out of sympathy with
cats, you may quite properly give this as a reason for not appearing
at the dedication ceremonies of a cat hospital. But bear in mind
that your opinion of cats was not sought, only your services as a
speaker. Try to keep things straight. Strunk and White, "The
Elements of Style"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
