Bug#589671: marked as done (Required package set can be fully usable)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#589671: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #589671, regarding Required package set can be fully usable to be marked as done. This means that

Bug#866192: marked as done (debian-policy: Broken Link in Policy HTML Page)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#866192: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #866192, regarding debian-policy: Broken Link in Policy HTML Page to be marked as done. This means

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

Tobias Frost writes: > Am Donnerstag, den 03.08.2017, 11:58 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery: >> Or track MIA teams, which in a lot of ways is a much easier problem, >> and seems like a worthwhile problem to solve anyway. > No, because with a $TEAM you have to expand it to

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:57:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> but regardless of that discussion, machine-readable team information is >> not something we have now. > Policy says that Uploaders should list all co-maintainers. Your understanding of

debian-policy_4.0.1.0_multi.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:47:47 -0400 Source: debian-policy Binary: debian-policy Architecture: all source Version: 4.0.1.0 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy List

Bug#758124: marked as done (Documenting the Testsuite field in the Policy.)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#758124: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #758124, regarding Documenting the Testsuite field in the Policy. to be marked as done. This means

Bug#678607: marked as done ("original authors" in 12.5 is unclear)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#678607: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #678607, regarding "original authors" in 12.5 is unclear to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#839172: marked as done (TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#839172: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #839172, regarding TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet to be marked as done.

Bug#485776: marked as done (Incorporate maintscript flowcharts from Debian Women, or similar)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#485776: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #485776, regarding Incorporate maintscript flowcharts from Debian Women, or similar to be marked as

Bug#640263: marked as done (Clarify 9.9 - Environment variables)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#640263: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #640263, regarding Clarify 9.9 - Environment variables to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#849853: marked as done ([debian-policy] Document source-is-missing lintian kind of problems)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#849853: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #849853, regarding [debian-policy] Document source-is-missing lintian kind of problems to be marked

Bug#822430: marked as done (debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#822430: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #822430, regarding debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead to be

Bug#769273: marked as done (Allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#758234: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #758234, regarding Allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority to be marked as done.

Bug#867308: marked as done (debian-policy: please add "javascript" as a valid value for the Section field)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#867308: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #867308, regarding debian-policy: please add "javascript" as a valid value for the Section field to

Bug#196367: marked as done (Clarify Policy on priority inversion in dependencies)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#196367: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #196367, regarding Clarify Policy on priority inversion in dependencies to be marked as done. This

Bug#835520: marked as done (Policy 9.3.1 is inaccurate to the point of being harmful)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#835520: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #835520, regarding Policy 9.3.1 is inaccurate to the point of being harmful to be marked as done.

Bug#660249: marked as done (reword reasons for a package to be priority: extra)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#660249: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #660249, regarding reword reasons for a package to be priority: extra to be marked as done. This

Bug#759260: marked as done (Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages priority "optional")

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#759260: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #759260, regarding Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages priority "optional" to

Bug#758234: marked as done (Allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#758234: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #758234, regarding Allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority to be marked as done.

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 03:28:57PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I don't understand this suggestion. If it can be automatically > > > generated, just generate it when you need it -- why store it in the > > > source package? > > >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:39:40 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Regarding the first point, most large teams do have have the concept of > package ownership inside the team. Maybe, maybe not. So far I've seen mostly voices from people working in teams in this thread who are in favour of dropping the

Bug#798476: Bug#870788: Extract recent uploaders from d/changelog

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 03:19:29PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:35:35PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > Note that a prerequisite for such debian/changelog parsing would be > > > > that policy sets strict syntax and semantics requirements. > > > > > > No, we do not

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

One thing that is worth discussing here: For how many teams would it bring real benefits if they no longer have to maintain team membership information in every source packages? My guesstimate is that these might perhaps be 5 teams. Why is my guestimate so low? It only brings real benefits

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:20:37 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > > So far I've seen mostly voices from people working in teams in this > > thread who are in favour of dropping the required Uploaders field. > So, if you want to count votes: I am working in teams (mainly Debian > Astro), and I would

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

gregor herrmann writes: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:39:40 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> Regarding the first point, most large teams do have have the concept of >> package ownership inside the team. > > Maybe, maybe not. > So far I've seen mostly voices from people working in

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 09:05:46PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I think using the uploaders: field to guess who's a team member is just a > > work-around / an estimate, as we have nothing better. > It is the official place to list co-maintainers. you keep repeating this but its still broken by

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:55:01AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is orphaned, and > > > > gives

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 02:15:16PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >... > Besides, while it doesn't imply you shouldn't make an upload that only > changes the maintainer (unlike 5.9.5. Adopting a package), I think it's > the usual practice to not make such upload. For people who are orphaning

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:10:41PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > In a more general note, I am a bit puzzled that it is so controversial > > that machine-readable team membership information is important and > > should continue to be available. > >

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:01:41AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Nowadays orphaning is done by reuploading the package with the > > > maintainer set to the QA group rather than using a O: wnpp bug. > > Huh? > > See: >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:57:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > but regardless of > that discussion, machine-readable team information is not something we > have now. Policy says that Uploaders should list all co-maintainers. Who is considered a co-maintainer is determined by team policy or

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:20:31PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 04 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Autogenerating Uploaders like GNOME does [1] would be an alternative > > approach. > > > > [1] > > https://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-pkg-tools/0.19.9/1/rules/uploaders.mk/

Bug#798476: Bug#870788: Extract recent uploaders from d/changelog

Adrian Bunk: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:13:09PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Package: tracker.debian.org >> Severity: wishlist >> >> On Thu, Aug 03 2017, Holger Levsen wrote: >> >>> Then, Tobias has a point, knowing which team members uploaded a package is >>> useful. So I have a simple

Bug#798476: Bug#870788: Extract recent uploaders from d/changelog

Hello, On Sat, Aug 05 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I assume you are thinking of parsing the [ name ] syntax used by many > teams. Yes. > Note that a prerequisite for such debian/changelog parsing would be > that policy sets strict syntax and semantics requirements. No, we do not need to block

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

Am Freitag, den 04.08.2017, 22:46 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is > > > orphaned, and > > > gives permission to everyone to adopt the package immediately. > > > > So just

Bug#798476: Bug#870788: Extract recent uploaders from d/changelog

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 07:00:16AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, Aug 05 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I assume you are thinking of parsing the [ name ] syntax used by many > > teams. > > Yes. > > > Note that a prerequisite for such debian/changelog parsing would be > > that

Bug#798476: Bug#870788: Extract recent uploaders from d/changelog

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:35:35PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Note that a prerequisite for such debian/changelog parsing would be > > > that policy sets strict syntax and semantics requirements. > > > > No, we do not need to block such a feature that would work for 90% of > > packages

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I don't understand this suggestion. If it can be automatically > > generated, just generate it when you need it -- why store it in the > > source package? > > What cannot be automatically generated is the other side of the >