PGP-Keys for package work
Hi, do you maintain a separate key for signing packages etc. or do you use a subkey and a separate user id on your usual key? I tend to use the subkey approach. Any opinions on this? Best practices? Michael -- biff4emacsen - A biff-like tool for (X)Emacs http://www.c0t0d0s0.de/biff4emacsen/biff4emacsen.html Flood - Your friendly network packet generator http://www.c0t0d0s0.de/flood/flood.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509722: RFP: python-graph -- library for working with graphs in Python
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org --- Please fill out the fields below. --- Package name: python-graph Version: Upstream Author: [NAME ] URL: [http://code.google.com/p/python-graph/] License: [MIT] Description: [library for working with graphs in Python] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509732: Debian policy doesn't feature RC bugs
Package: general Severity: important The Debian Policy Manual doesn't feature the Debian Bug Tracking System. This makes it impossible to report a bug with RC severity in the Bug Tracking System that permits RC bugs to remain in Debian when the report is closed incorrectly and nobody notices before it is archived (please see bug #227941.) Since the problem is only specific to that bug, it would suffice to raise severity of #227941 to serious. The current description of severities contained in doc-base (in bug-maint-info.txt) lists RC bugs as critical, grave and serious, but nothing in the policy qualifies #227941 as serious (there's no directive that makes it a policy violation) and the bug isn't grave or critical according to that description. I am filing this bug so that this is resolved. According to the description in that file (bug-maint-info.txt) this bug isn't RC as well despite it permits RC bugs to remain in Debian as explained above. A solution would be to include a directive in the Debian Policy that requires any RC problem be marked as serious. Please, mark this bug as serious if it's not going to happen in short. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509732: Debian policy doesn't feature RC bugs
> This makes it impossible to report a bug with RC severity in > the Bug Tracking System that permits RC bugs to remain in Debian when > the report is closed incorrectly and nobody notices before it is > archived (please see bug #227941.) Since the problem is only specific > to that bug, it would suffice to raise severity of #227941 to serious. > The current description of severities contained in doc-base (in > bug-maint-info.txt) lists RC bugs as critical, grave and serious, but > nothing in the policy qualifies #227941 as serious (there's no > directive that makes it a policy violation) and the bug isn't grave or > critical according to that description. I wrote the text above before reading Sven's message. The text of bug-maint-info.txt in stable (etch) does not feature the unarchive command yet since it was added after the doc-base package was frozen or nobody cared to update it before. Please, let it be: This makes it impossible to report a bug with RC severity in the Bug Tracking System that permits RC bugs to remain in the next releases of Debian when the report is closed incorrectly and nobody notices before they are out. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
