On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:41:07PM -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> >
> > So yes at any time they are a number of active, hard-working team, but there
> > also a larger number of phantom team that used to be active, but whose
> > packages are still maintained in Debian. It is important they carry
>
> So yes at any time they are a number of active, hard-working team, but there
> also a larger number of phantom team that used to be active, but whose
> packages are still maintained in Debian. It is important they carry some
> valid information about the effective maintainers.
>
What are
> The problem is that the information in Uploaders is no more likely to
> be up-to-date than the team homepage/policy/docs.
I disagree: team homepage/policy/docs can go unmaintained for long,
whereas every upload triggers a lintian warning unless the uploader is
listed as such (and unless
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 07:18:41AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > The problem is that the majority of such documentation is outdated and
> > obsolete to the point of being useless.
> > Most team start big and then
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:33:49PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>...
> Before doing that, at the risk of achieving nothing, I'd like to suggest
> another wording:
>
> ... if the Maintainer control field names a group of people and a
> shared email address, the Uploaders field must be
Hello Bill,
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> The problem is that the majority of such documentation is outdated and
> obsolete to the point of being useless.
> Most team start big and then slowly falter until they are reduced to
> a single member (because it is
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:33:49PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> ... if the Maintainer control field names a group of people and a
> shared email address, the Uploaders field must be present and must
> contain at least one human with their personal email address. An
> exception is
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:36:22PM +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> I also want to see this. It makes lots of sense, especially for
> teams maintaining very large numbers of packages. Honestly, the
> individual package does not carry heavy weight in some of those
> teams. At the same time,
* Tobias Frost [160715 21:03]:
> > These packages are clearly not not-maintained (teams care about
> > them), so orphaning or assinging to Debian QA Group would make no
> > sense whatsoever.
[..]
> From my short time as MIA member I can tell it is already hard enough
> to find
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
* 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 a team, but noone cares specifically about that individual
> package, I feel it's
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Charles Plessy wrote:
> if I remember well, this policy was set because some developers were
> (rightfully in my opinion) annoyed when the Maintainer field is a moderated
> mailing list and there is no Uploader field.
I don't think that this requirement makes sense. They
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> No, we should stop filing O bugs. Instead we have just come up with a
> nice definition of an orphaned package, it's called the
> no-human-maintainer lintian tag:
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/no-human-maintainers.
Sorry, the correct link is
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
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 a team, but noone cares specifically about that individual
package, I feel it's better than
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:57:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > Package: debian-policy
> > > Severity: wishlist
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > for some time
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 22:30:10 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:57:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > Package:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a
> > mailing list and no Uploaders field.
> Do you realize that upload of such package will count as
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a
> mailing list and no Uploaders field.
Do you realize that upload of such package will count as an NMU ?
Package: debian-policy
Followup-For: Bug #798476
Hi,
So I've had a quick chat with jcristau about this in #debian-doc. Here
is my proposal:
Instead of allowing there to be no named person for packages, allow
packages to be orphaned but without the changing of the Maintainer field
if it was
Package: debian-policy
Followup-For: Bug #798476
Hi,
N!
Every package *must* have at least one named *person*. If it doesn't
have a named person, it's orphaned.
If you don't care about the package enough to maintain it, orphan it so
that someone else can or otherwise request its
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a
> > mailing list and no
21 matches
Mail list logo