On Sun, 03 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
The bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/89038
is still looking for two more seconds. This would allow us to retire the
tiny separate mime-policy document. Could other folks take a look and
confirm that all looks well?
Seconded. It's fine for me.
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
My inclination is to second this, but I want to make sure that we've
answered your and Julien's objections first.
And for complete reference, dpkg accepts those version in
/var/lib/dpkg/status (so that dpkg still works for
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 20:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/89038
is still looking for two more seconds. This would allow us to retire the
tiny separate mime-policy document. Could other folks take a look and
confirm that all looks well?
We separately
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reassign 620674 debian-policy
Bug #620674 [base-files] base-files: Please include the text of the Open Font
License (OFL) in /usr/share/common-licenses
Bug reassigned from package 'base-files' to 'debian-policy'.
Bug No longer marked as found in
* Russ Allbery [Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:12:03PM -0700]:
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org writes:
Yeah, actually the change is breaking existing packages which used to
work just fine (disclaimer: no, the ones I'm talking about aren't
available in the official Debian pool).
I understand the
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 02:23:25AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
My inclination is to second this, but I want to make sure that we've
answered your and Julien's objections first.
And for complete reference, dpkg accepts
* Bill Allombert [2011-04-04 12:03 +0200]:
Unfortunately, we cannot force upstream to use a version that start by a
digit,
We would need to document a mangling process for upstream version that start
by a letter.
Quoting policy:
| epoch
|
| This is a single (generally small) unsigned
Hi,
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
1. upstream_version must start with a digit;
Unfortunately, we cannot force upstream to use a version that start by a
digit,
We would need to document a mangling process for upstream version that start
by a letter.
We have no upstream with
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:59:43PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
* Bill Allombert [2011-04-04 12:03 +0200]:
Unfortunately, we cannot force upstream to use a version that start by a
digit,
We would need to document a mangling process for upstream version that start
by a letter.
Quoting
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 593909 + patch
Bug #593909 [debian-policy] clarify the syntax of Debian control files
Bug #618013 [debian-policy] clarify the syntax of Debian control files
Added tag(s) patch.
Added tag(s) patch.
tag 609160 + proposal
Unknown tag/s:
Le Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 08:42:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=515837
Hello everybody,
this comment will perhaps not help the bug to be closed, but I note that in the
case of alltray, the upstream desktop file uses the category
Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es writes:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Christian Perrier wrote:
The Open Font License is quite universally considered as meeting the
DFSG. Indeed, several font packages in Debian main provide fonts
distributed under that license.
Having the full text of OFL distributed in
Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
it's trivial to add a leading 0.
We could recommend that explicitly if it would help. It would be my
recommendation even without the restriction on version numbers, since
alphanumerics would sort after any numbers, so you'd
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
Please could you add /run as an exception to the FHS? I've attached
a patch with proposed text.
References:
#620191 - initscripts support for /run
#620157 - base-files provides /run
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think this is an interesting conversation, but so far as I can tell it's
not particularly relevant to Policy. There are no such packages with
those version numbers currently in Debian, so Policy can simply say that
there will never be in the future either and be done
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
What about previously-in-archive packages?
Are there any of significance? The example you gave in your previous mail
doesn't appear in the BTS at all, so I assume it's quite old if it was
ever in the archive.
Raphael said that dpkg wouldn't break
Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
What about previously-in-archive packages?
Are there any of significance?
I don't know. The example I gave was from a dpkg bug report, and I
don't know if it was contrived or not (one would have to ask the
submitter).
I admit
Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
What about previously-in-archive packages?
Are there any of significance?
Ah, I forgot to say: I think changing this to a must with advice to
add a 0 when the upstream version does not start with a number would
be a good change.
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:40:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think this is an interesting conversation, but so far as I can tell it's
not particularly relevant to Policy. There are no such packages with
those version numbers currently in Debian, so Policy can simply say that
there will never be
19 matches
Mail list logo
