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 #525843, regarding support for encoding long descriptions using a "standard" text-based markup language 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.) -- 525843: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=525843 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: debian-policy Version: 22.214.171.124 Severity: wishlist [ submitting bug report as requested at http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2009/04/msg00155.html ] Andreas Tille, has recently (re-)raised the issue of consistent formatting of lists in long descriptions [1,2].  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg01165.html  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/04/msg00757.html >From the discussion, it emerged that there is rough consensus (or at least it seems so to some of the participants, including myself and Manoj) about using a "standard" text-based markup language to interpret package long descriptions. Technically, the 2 mentioned solutions have been Markdown  and ReStructured Text . With both of them, the idea is that *current* long descriptions are already processable as if they were in that format, with very few exceptions.  http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/  http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html Implementations have been proposed already, in the form of tools that process packages long descriptions and output their corresponding rendered HTML format. In particular, 2 implementations have been presented for Markdown already: one by Andreas  and one by me .  http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2009/04/msg00146.html  http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-python-debian/python-debian.git;a=blob_plain;f=examples/deb822/render-dctrl;hb=HEAD Additionally, a weekly-generated archive of all long descriptions rendered with Markdown is now available at: http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/longdesc-mdwn/ . It is based on  above. Cheers. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.29-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.9.1 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information
--- 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 Whitton
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---