Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi.
It would be useful to have a copy of the HTML version of
upgrading-checklist somewhere on the web. This could, for example, be
linked from the PTS when some package's Standards-Version has to be
upgraded.
In #485085 the problem of the links from
On Sunday, August 28, 2011, Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com wrote:
On 28/08/11 02:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:00:33AM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
If you were to write a program that could report the copyright status of
every single file on the system, it would be weird if you
On 29/08/11 09:20, PJ Weisberg wrote:
On Sunday, August 28, 2011, Ximin Luo infini...@gmx.com wrote:
On 28/08/11 02:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:00:33AM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
If you were to write a program that could report the copyright status of
every single file
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 485085 with 639663
Bug #485085 [qa.debian.org] qa.debian.org: TODO page debian policy check list
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 485085: 639663
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
Hi,
Ximin Luo wrote:
I don't think disk space is an issue these days
I think that's the real point of disagreement here, for what it's
worth.
common-licenses is part of base-files, which is included on every
Debian installation. Some do need to be small.
(No opinion on whether the MPL
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Allowing debian/copyright to rely on files _other_ than the common
licenses in base-files would be a larger and different change, so
off-topic for this bug. Unless done carefully, I don't think it's a
good idea.
It's important to remember that
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:36:45AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Allowing debian/copyright to rely on files _other_ than the common
licenses in base-files would be a larger and different change, so
off-topic for this bug. Unless done carefully, I don't think it's a
good idea.
And FWIW, since
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
