Processing of developers-reference_13.5_source.changes

2024-04-07 Thread Debian FTP Masters
developers-reference_13.5_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: developers-reference_13.5.dsc developers-reference_13.5.tar.xz developers-reference_13.5_source.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)

developers-reference_13.5_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2024-04-07 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Thank you for your contribution to Debian. Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 13:19:29 +0200 Source: developers-reference Architecture: source Version: 13.5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Developers Reference

Bug#1039102: debian-policy: make systemd units mandatory for packages shipping system services

2024-04-07 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Sun 07 Apr 2024 at 08:54am +02, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 18:51:52 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: > > """ > +``systemd`` uses dependency and ordering information contained within the > ++enabled unit files to decide which services to run and in which order. > """ >

Bug#963524: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0

2024-04-07 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Sun 07 Apr 2024 at 08:44am +02, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > For the record, and as stated in https://bugs.debian.org/999598 >, > I would rather have the description lines back in the changes file to > provide the information in the emails presenting uploads, instead of > dropping

Bug#1039102: debian-policy: make systemd units mandatory for packages shipping system services

2024-04-07 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 18:51:52 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: """ +``systemd`` uses dependency and ordering information contained within the ++enabled unit files to decide which services to run and in which order. """ ^ is that "+" before "enabled" really intended? It looks weird to me. Paul

Bug#963524: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0

2024-04-07 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
For the record, and as stated in https://bugs.debian.org/999598 >, I would rather have the description lines back in the changes file to provide the information in the emails presenting uploads, instead of dropping them. I guess this bug report will be closed unsolved instead. -- Happy hacking

debconf BoF idea

2024-04-07 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Holger, I was thinking that maybe we could submit a joint Policy--DevRef BoF for debconf, if you are going to be there. -- Sean Whitton