On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:51:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
At this point, I would be fully in favor of anyone who has the time to
finish applying whatever patches Steve wanted applied that have consensus
and then uploading 3.9.3 with a request to debian-www that it be linked
into the web
Le Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:51:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
At this point, I would be fully in favor of anyone who has the time to
finish applying whatever patches Steve wanted applied that have consensus
and then uploading 3.9.3 with a request to debian-www that it be linked
into the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:24:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Bug 609160 is fixed in revision 3.9.2.0 already.
No, that revision contained an old, insufficient version of DEP5, which
needed fixing, so using the same bug was entirely appropriate. It
may conflict with your arbitrary rules for
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:37:32AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:24:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Bug 609160 is fixed in revision 3.9.2.0 already.
If you want to follow particular rules, that's fine, but stop assuming
other people are bound by them. Your rules,
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
How many more months will it take to put DEP5 on the policy web pages?
Been waiting that for half a year now... I don't think the policy
process is working at all right now.
Well, no, I would tend to agree that it's not really working. However,
that's
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:58AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Policy team and WWW team,
Here are two patches against the debian-policy package, in order to prepare
the
distribution of our specification of a machine-readable format for
debian/copyright, drafted as Debian Enhancement
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:38:07AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I do think it would be better to forego any changes to DEP5, unless
there's actual problems going on. However, if the policy team wants
to take over edits for now, I'm happy about that, and willing to
declare DEP5 be ACCEPTED. I'd
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:57:56PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi Lars,
I am not making insinuations.
Sorry, Charles, I was out of line, and my reaction was too strong.
I do think it would be better to forego any changes to DEP5, unless
there's actual problems going on. However, if the
Le Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 07:42:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:30:34PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 04:41:28PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
given that DEP 5 is still in the CANDIDATE state, and given that the
change is
not
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:24:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I do not know how to write this diplomatically, and my request to have my
patch
applied was a clumsy way to re-open the discussion without mentionning the
above email, but if 1) the only changes before the DEP is accepted are
Hi,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
After the policy team takes over maintenance of the DEP5 spec,
you can use the policy process to suggest changes to it.
The DEP5 spec is already in the policy repo. Is there any reason not
to move to that way of working now (which does not imply anything
about when
Le Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 06:46:21AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
On ke, 2011-04-13 at 10:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 07:16:17PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
Attached please find my changes to the docbook conversion.
* remove drivers from abstract
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 04:41:28PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
given that DEP 5 is still in the CANDIDATE state, and given that the change is
not normative, I was wondering if the patch I sent in November 2011,
reproduced
below for your convenience, could be applied in the end.
My opinion
Le Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:30:34PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
I'm still hoping that the DEP5 spec will properly integrated into the policy
package soon, and I would prefer to see that happening, so that my
involvement in it can end, than make any other changes right now.
That would be
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
Policy team, is there any reason to not do that? As far as I can see the
only changes needed are to provide a stable URL (with embedded version
number), and changing the spec to use that URL in the Format: header.
No reason whatsoever, and it would have
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:30:34PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 04:41:28PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
given that DEP 5 is still in the CANDIDATE state, and given that the change
is
not normative, I was wondering if the patch I sent in November 2011,
reproduced
Steve Langasek wrote:
I think there are significant language
bugs in the current draft that should be fixed before this is ready to be
adopted as a standard.
Could you list some?
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Le Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 07:16:17PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
reopen 609160
thanks
Attached please find my changes to the docbook conversion.
* remove drivers from abstract (we're mentioned in acks, which is
enough)
* a couple of missing spaces from markup
* removal of useless
On ke, 2011-04-13 at 10:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 07:16:17PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
reopen 609160
thanks
Attached please find my changes to the docbook conversion.
* remove drivers from abstract (we're mentioned in acks, which is
enough)
*
reopen 609160
thanks
Attached please find my changes to the docbook conversion.
* remove drivers from abstract (we're mentioned in acks, which is
enough)
* a couple of missing spaces from markup
* removal of useless appendix (this was in dep svn already, so better do
it in the version in policy
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reopen 609160
Bug #609160 {Done: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org} [debian-policy]
debian-policy: include DEP5
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
you may need to use 'found' to remove fixed versions.
thanks
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Pong :)
Here is DEP-5 in DocBook format, and the changes needed to the
debian-policy package to build it in HTML and text formats. I have
followed the same way as the Debconf spec. In the long term, there is
probably a smarter way to do, but for the
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
My inclination is to include it in the next debian-policy package
upload, but (since that's happening tomorrow, not giving people much
time), remove the reference to it in Policy proper for right now and not
make a big deal out of the fact that it's there.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 01:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Pong :)
Here is DEP-5 in DocBook format, and the changes needed to the
debian-policy package to build it in HTML and text formats. I have
followed the same way as the Debconf spec.
On ti, 2011-03-01 at 19:13 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ping :). I would be interested in either a copy in debiandoc format
or rules in the Makefile to build from docbook format. If interested
in the latter, please coordinate work using Bug#175064.
I note that since I submitted the bug
Hi,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Updating the patch should, I think, be done
only after the draft is final and policy is ready to include it in the
package (even if only in the policy VCS repository).
If you mean that there is no need to update to an intermediate
version, makes sense to me.
On ke, 2011-03-02 at 03:33 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Updating the patch should, I think, be done
only after the draft is final and policy is ready to include it in the
package (even if only in the policy VCS repository).
If you mean that there is no need to update to an intermediate
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ke, 2011-03-02 at 03:33 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
If you mean that there is no need to update to an intermediate
version, makes sense to me. Anyway, getting any version ready to
include in the VCS (on a branch) seems worthwhile to me, and after
that, updating
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
I can try this weekend to write some makefile rules to build from
docbook XML.
This should already be there to handle the debconf spec, which is already
in Policy and already written in Docbook.
IMHO it would not be worth it to couple this with
Russ Allbery wrote:
This should already be there to handle the debconf spec, which is already
in Policy and already written in Docbook.
Ah, debconf_spec/Makefile. Thanks, and sorry I missed this before.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
severity 609160 wishlist
usertags 609160 + packaging
quit
Hi Charles,
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 09:49:17PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
Attached please find a patch that adds a copy of DEP5 to the
debian-policy package.
[...]
if
Le Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 07:13:57PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
Ping :). I would be interested in either a copy in debiandoc format
or rules in the Makefile to build from docbook format. If interested
in the latter, please coordinate work using Bug#175064.
Dear Jonathan,
I have a
Le Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 09:49:17PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
Attached please find a patch that adds a copy of DEP5 to the
debian-policy package. I have attempted to add it to the Makefile and
debian/rules file, but not sure if I did it in a good way.
The actual spec text is identical
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 09:49:17PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
Attached please find a patch that adds a copy of DEP5 to the
debian-policy package. I have attempted to add it to the Makefile and
debian/rules file, but not sure if I did it in a good
Package: debian-policy
Version: n/a
Attached please find a patch that adds a copy of DEP5 to the
debian-policy package. I have attempted to add it to the Makefile and
debian/rules file, but not sure if I did it in a good way.
The actual spec text is identical to the one on the DEP site
35 matches
Mail list logo
