Hi, please cc: me, I'm not subscribed. On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I think policy is unclear here: this part of policy was added per > > #224509, while there is #506898 (which is unfortuantly merged with > > 224509, as I read it should conflict with #506898), which says that this > > part of policy contradicts with §3.9.1 intruduced via #206684, which > > makes use of debconf mandatory. > > I don't see what's unclear or why you think these bugs should not be > merged. Could you add more explanation? #506898, which is merged with #224509, basically says that #224509 should not be in policy, because it contradicts the change introduced by fixing #206684. I suspect/"fear" that if #224509 gets closed by an upload, which brings that "fix" into policy, #506898 also gets closed and we have a contradiction in policy. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.