Your message dated Wed, 1 May 2013 17:59:48 +0200 with message-id <20130501155948.GV12846@radis.cristau.org> and subject line Re: Bug#704286: release-notes: dselect being ancient is not new has caused the Debian Bug report #704286, regarding release-notes: dselect being ancient is not new to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 704286: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704286 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: release-notes: dselect being ancient is not new
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:28:10 -0700
- Message-id: <20130331082810.GA8828@elie.Belkin>
Package: release-notes Version: r9650 Tags: wheezy patch Hi, The "What's new" section contains a note pointing out that dselect is not very well supported any more. That is not new. This section also has some advice about which tools to use to perform the upgrade. If that advice should be included in the release notes at all, it certainly does not belong in the "What's new" section. An appropriate place would be the "Updating packages" instructions, which already say to run apt-get dist-upgrade So this paragraph is completely unneeded. Index: whats-new.dbk =================================================================== --- whats-new.dbk (révision 9650) +++ whats-new.dbk (copie de travail) @@ -401,20 +401,6 @@ </para> </section> -<!-- FIXME: REVIEW for wheezy --> -<section id="pkgmgmt"> -<title>Package management</title> -<para> -The preferred program for interactive package management from a terminal is -<command>aptitude</command>. For a non-interactive command line interface -for package management, it is recommended to use <command>apt-get</command>. -<command>apt-get</command> is also the preferred tool for upgrades -between major releases. -If you are still using <command>dselect</command>, you should switch to -<systemitem role="package">aptitude</systemitem> as the official front-end -for package management. -</para> - <programlisting condition="fixme"> TODO: Do we have to mention dpkg triggers here or elsewhere? </programlisting>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>, 704286-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#704286: release-notes: dselect being ancient is not new
- From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 17:59:48 +0200
- Message-id: <20130501155948.GV12846@radis.cristau.org>
- In-reply-to: <20130405155731.GA3259@elie.Belkin>
- References: <20130331082810.GA8828@elie.Belkin> <20130405130614.GX5725@radis.cristau.org> <20130405155731.GA3259@elie.Belkin>
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 08:57:32 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Julien Cristau wrote: > > > Thanks, I dropped that note. > > Thanks. > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:28:10 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >> This section also has some advice about which tools to use to perform > >> the upgrade. If that advice should be included in the release notes > >> at all, it certainly does not belong in the "What's new" section. An > >> appropriate place would be the "Updating packages" instructions, which > >> already say to run > >> > >> apt-get dist-upgrade > > > > Leaving this bug open until I get to the upgrading chapter and figure > > out where to put that advice. > > Just to be clear: I think the upgrading chapter already does a good > job of describing what tools to use. The paragraph in whats-new > comparing tools looks completely redundant. > > If you prefer not to remove it, would you mind moving it or marking it > fixme in the meantime? Especially this close to a release, I worry > that it is easy to leave issues unaddressed and hence I try to get > things to as close to a releasable state as possible first, refining > later. > Removed earlier today per #706551. Cheers, JulienAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---