Re: flushing old bugs
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:12:29PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> #218893 debian/rules.version file [Fix for the build-arch problem]
> Add some special way so that dpkg-buildpackage can figure out what
> targets are there. Well, proper way would be to set severity to wishlist
> and wait whether someone makes a proposal out of it.
This bug report include a patch for dpkg (to implement the feature) and a patch
to debian-policy (to document it). It is pending implementation in dpkg
(or notification of dpkg maintainer that they disagree with the feature).
> #222553 policy 11.5.3 refers to using the menu package to register docs
> very fresh; should IMHO be wishlist until it's a proposal and has two
> seconds.
It had more or less two second (Joy and me). Someone need to write
a doc-base proposal.
> #129131 add kderemove to allowed tags in menu subpolicy
> newly assigned from lintian; are we responsible also for that subpolicy?
> Otherwise, it seems sane to me, but I know almost nothing about menus.
I will reassign to menu and probably close it when I get the
opportunuity to test the new KDE menu stuff. Chris Cheney told me
that kderemove was deprecated.
> #35762 lintian could check for hardcoded --infodir in maintaner scripts
> last changed 2001 -> flush it
What is the status of this issue ? Is the translation complete ?
> #39825 menu: There should be a Apps/Mail section
> last changed 2002 -> flush it
To be honest, I would prefer if menu subpolicy was frozen until sarge
release, so I get a chance to have all the translations of menu section
up-to-date for sarge. On the other hand, Apps/Mail or Apps/Net/Mail
seems reasonnable. (The alternative being someone fixing the hints support
in menu)
> #65577 [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a
> part of Debian distribution
> last change in 2000 -> flush it
I would posit that package not part of Debian are not bound by Debian policy,
so this proposal is moot.
> #84473 please document typical 'hints' and where to find them
> last in Feb 03; however, it's a valid request to document them. So, I'd
> keep it for the moment
As above. I don't have the resource to fix hints myself, sorry.
You can get information about the state of hints in Debian at
<http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/menu>.
> #85270 [PROPOSAL] Forbiding debian-revision field for Debian-native source
> packages
> last change 2001 -> flush it
Please keep it open. There still wrong upload of non-pristine source
done. (I offer to fix menu versionning if it is implemented :) )
> #89039 [PROPOSAL] document menu file format in policy
> last change 2001 -> flush it
I don't think documenting menu file format in policy make sense but more
generally, there is a question whether menu subpolicy must include the
recognized 'needs' and fields and the way menu-methods must handle them.
At least, I have fixed the menu manual to document that. But this is
a different topicthat deserve another bug report if any.
> #114920 [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names
> last change in 2001 -> flush it
Please don't flush this one. This discussion seemingly has stalled on a wording
issue with people mainly agreeing.
> #122038 Use of /var/backups is apparently undocumented
> last change in Aug 03 -> flush it
If it is still not documented, don't flush that proposal.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: