On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 04:35:16PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Nov 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > If I would report hundreds of "dpkg-buildpackage -A" FTBFS bugs against
> > > stable, would you consider that a valuable contri
On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 04:35:16PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If I would report hundreds of "dpkg-buildpackage -A" FTBFS bugs against
> > stable, would you consider that a valuable contribution to unhide problems?
>
> Packages in stable
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If I would report hundreds of "dpkg-buildpackage -A" FTBFS bugs against
> stable, would you consider that a valuable contribution to unhide problems?
Packages in stable must build in stable. If a package from stable FTBFS
in stable, then yes, you should
Hi all,
thanks to everybody for your advise.
On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 01:02:27AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
> > found 39 maintainer scripts in sta
Sean Whitton writes:
> There is a huge backlog of bugs to update policy, most of which are for
> entirely uncontroversial changes.
> If people wanted to do the restructuring work first, all the patches on
> all those bugs would have to be rewritten. Further, it is a waste of
> time restructurin
> debian-reference-common_2.58_all/postinst
> debian-reference-de_2.58_all/postinst
> debian-reference-en_2.58_all/postinst
> debian-reference-fr_2.58_all/postinst
> debian-reference-it_2.58_all/postinst
> debian-reference-ja_2.58_all/postinst
> debian-reference-pt_2.58_all/postinst
Hmmm... it's a
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 10:29:26AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> do you think this is something which could be re-started at say DebConf
> (or probably better, DebCamp), or a dedicated debian-policy sprint?
>
> would anybody else be interested to spend time+work on this?
There is a huge b
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 06:15:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Policy is currently written like a normal instruction manual. This has a
> lot of real merit, but for quite some time I've thought that it may be
> worth the effort to figure out how to structure it in a somewhat more
> formal way, so
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:03:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> (We unfortunately don't have good language for this in Policy. Right
>> now, the must/should distinction conflates two things: severity, and
>> certainty. We used to have the same problem in Lintian and exp
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:03:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (We unfortunately don't have good language for this in Policy. Right now,
> the must/should distinction conflates two things: severity, and certainty.
> We used to have the same problem in Lintian and explicitly split severity
> and c
Hi Ralf,
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
> found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The
> list is attached. Policy 6.1 says about maintainer scripts:
>
> if they are scrip
On 2016-11-04 15:03 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ralf Treinen writes:
>
>> in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
>> found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The
>> list is attached. Policy 6.1 says about maintainer scripts:
>
>> if they are
Ralf Treinen writes:
> in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
> found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The
> list is attached. Policy 6.1 says about maintainer scripts:
> if they are scripts (which is recommended), they must start with the
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:01:31PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> >
> > Hi Ralf,
> >
> > > in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 05:05:33PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On November 4, 2016 5:01:31 PM EDT, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> >Hi Ralf,
> >
> >> in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
>
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:01:31PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Ralf,
>
> > in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
> > found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The
> >
On November 4, 2016 5:01:31 PM EDT, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>Hi Ralf,
>
>> in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
>> found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The
>> list is att
On 2016-11-04 21:22 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
> found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The
> list is attached. Policy 6.1 says about maintainer scripts:
>
> if they are scripts (which is reco
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Ralf,
> in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
> found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The
> list is attached. Policy 6.1 says about maintainer scripts:
>
> if they ar
Hi,
in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we
found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The
list is attached. Policy 6.1 says about maintainer scripts:
if they are scripts (which is recommended), they must start with the
usual #! convention.
A
20 matches
Mail list logo
