Bug#604193: 7.4: non-working email should be a serious bug?

Package: developers-reference Version: 3.4.3 Severity: normal As far as I can tell (in particular from policy 3.3) a non-working maintainer email violates a must policy directive, and is thus a serious bug. If this is the case, perhaps the paragraph about sending email to the maintainer should

Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

On May 1, 2011 seanius wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:51:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I don't think it's Policy's place to tell people that they can't use hashes because they *might* result in long version numbers. They usually don't. +1. otherwise, this seems more like a

Bug#769219: function moved

That function is now in ox-html.el Maybe loading that explicitly (as well as org?) helps. d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Bug#769219: function moved

Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes: That function is now in ox-html.el Are you sure ? grep org-export-as-html-batch /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/org-mode/ox-html.el does not return anything. Sorry, I was misled by emacs function name completion. The following is a partial solution.

Bug#769219: function moved

Rob Browning r...@debian.org writes: Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes: What to do for ascii : emacs24 --batch -Q -l ./README-css.el -l org -l org-ascii --visit Process.org --funcall org-export-as-ascii Attached is a better patch series that fixes the ascii export, and deals with

Bug#769219: function moved

Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes: E: debian-policy: privacy-breach-may-use-debian-package usr/share/doc/debian-policy/Process.html You may use libjs-mathjax package. (http://orgmode.org/mathjax/mathjax.js) Hmm. I don't have much experience with that js stuff. It might be possible to

Bug#769219: function moved

Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes: E: debian-policy: privacy-breach-may-use-debian-package usr/share/doc/debian-policy/Process.html You may use libjs-mathjax package. (http://orgmode.org/mathjax/mathjax.js) OK, so this is all a bit silly to display π, but you can either diff --git

Bug#769219: function moved

Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes: Do you know if there is a org to XML (or SGML) conversion option ? There is HTML output (which you are already using) and ODT output. Both are in some sense XML. I didn't work through how to get uncompressed XML from the ODT export, but attached find

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

> > So yes at any time they are a number of active, hard-working team, but there > also a larger number of phantom team that used to be active, but whose > packages are still maintained in Debian. It is important they carry some > valid information about the effective maintainers. > What are

Bug#758124: Seconded

r since it is older than the > version in oldstable > > - move the text out of tags since we're trying to reduce the > number of footnotes in Policy. > > -- > Sean Whitton Seconded David Bremner signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#822430: debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 01:14:49PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > > """ > Any package installing shared libraries in one of the default library > directories of the dynamic linker (which are currently /usr/lib and > /lib) or a directory that is listed in /etc/ld.so.conf[60] must use > ldconfig to

Bug#839172: TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet

Sean Whitton writes: > diff --git a/policy.xml b/policy.xml > index 3daa532..934a85b 100644 > --- a/policy.xml > +++ b/policy.xml > @@ -8990,14 +8990,8 @@ Reloading description > configuration...done. > receive extra contributions such as translations. >

Bug#678607: debian-policy: "original authors" in 12.5 is unclear

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:51:51PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > I'm not sure why Jonathan thinks his patch is a strawman. It addresses > the main issue of this bug. I don't think the explanation of what an > upstream contact is needs to be relegated to a footnote. So I am > seeking seconds for

Bug#679751: Patch to close out this bug

Sean Whitton writes: > +.. _s-nonexistent: > + > +Non-existent home directories > +~ > + > +The canonical non-existent home directory is ``/nonexistent``. Users > +who should not have a home directory should have their home directory > +set

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

Ian Jackson writes: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.3.0 > > We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again > became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be > rare and there are often better solutions. I

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

Sean Whitton writes: > Let me first say exactly what change I'd recommend: > > - out-of-date-standards-version should be I: or P: instead of W: > - ancient-standards-version should remain W: > - ancient-standards-version should be triggered when S-V contains a >

Bug#459427: Patch seeking seconds on changelog vs. NEWS handling

Sean Whitton writes: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst > index 1de221f..e990f34 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst > @@ -255,32 +255,45 @@ files may be installed into ``/usr/share/doc/package``. > > .. _s-changelogs: > > -Changelog files >

Bug#459427: Patch seeking seconds on changelog vs. NEWS handling

Sean Whitton writes: >> diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst >> index 1de221f..1503ed8 100644 >> --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst >> @@ -255,32 +255,48 @@ files may be installed into ``/usr/share/doc/package``. >> >> .. _s-changelogs: >> >> -Changelog files

Bug#813471: Seeking seconds for patch to permit some network access to localhost

Sean Whitton writes: > control: tag -1 +patch > > Hello, > > Here is a patch, for which I am seeking seconds, that tries to capture > the points raised by Osamu, Guillem and Paul without getting into > legalese -- Bill has a point. In particular, I think we can trust > package maintainers to

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

Sean Whitton writes: > > I am therefore seeking seconds for the following patch. In seconding > this, please remember that to second something is not simply to say that > you agree with the change, but also to indicate agreement with my > judgement that the change reflects project consensus.

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

Ian Jackson writes: > Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend > verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse"): >> I think that the use of 'maximally' is fine given that the previous >> sentence is now qualified with 'reasonably'. > > Yes. > >> Here is the

Bug#813471: Seeking seconds for patch to permit some network access to localhost

Sean Whitton writes: > > Here is a revised patch; David, hopefully you will renew your second. > >> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst >> index 9e7d79c..890c479 100644 >> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst >> @@ -278,7 +278,8 @@ non-interactive. It

Bug#881431: proposed wording

Adam Borowski writes: > > Sounds better than mine. I'd re-add "once that package has been accepted > into the archive", to make it obvious that resubmissions to NEW and/or > mentors are expected to reuse version numbers of what they amend. Personally, I usually increase

Bug#902612: Packages should not touch users' home directories

Sean Whitton writes: >> OK. Something like this? >> >> Packages must not contain files in /home, and packages' maintainer >> scripts must not write to users' home directories. The programs in >> those packages may create directory hierarchies as described in >> §3.8.3 "Home

Bug#940234: debian-policy: add a section about source reproducibility

Aurelien Jarno writes: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.4.0.1 > Severity: wishlist > > There is already a section about reproducibility in the debian-policy, > but it only mentions the binary packages. It might be a good idea to > add a new requirement that repeatedly building the source

Bug#941198: In support of mandatory unit files

Bill Allombert writes: > > In any case, this is an upstream choice, not a packaging choice, so we > have to use what upstream provide. > Just to be clear using /etc/default is not an upstream choice, it's a Debian convention. I know you probably didn't mean to imply that, but that's how it read

Bug#944920: Revise terminology used to specify requirements

Sean Whitton writes: > >> -No package for a 64 bit architecture may install files in >> -``/usr/lib64/`` or in a subdirectory of it. >> +Packages must not install files in ``/usr/lib64`` or in a subdirectory >> +of it. > > This seems to be a semantic change, generalising the

Bug#986320: Stronger advice on when to use native packages

Russ Allbery writes: > Currently, Debian Policy is silent on when it's appropriate to use a > native package, but there may be a project consensus aganist using > native packages when the software has an existence outside of Debian. Personally I don't think Debian policy should be concerned

Bug#998282: Please make Section a required field for the source paragraph in d/control

Felix Lechner writes: > > The installable stanzas in d/control (called "binary package > paragraphs" in policy) inherit the Section field from the source > paragraph. There is no reason to provide inheritance the other way > around. > > Also, sources may not build successfully on all