On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:24:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > Bug 609160 is fixed in revision 3.9.2.0 already. No, that revision contained an old, insufficient version of DEP5, which needed fixing, so using the same bug was entirely appropriate. It may conflict with your arbitrary rules for dealing with policy bugs, but it is not my job to find out and obey any different rules for every package I file bugs against. If you want to follow particular rules, that's fine, but stop assuming other people are bound by them. Your rules, so you fix things. Politely, please. How many more months will it take to put DEP5 on the policy web pages? Been waiting that for half a year now... I don't think "the policy process" is working at all right now. There is no DEP5 on the policy web pages, and yet even my original patch included a URL that assumed it would be put there. The bug should _again be re-opened, since you didn't actually fix it. You merely shifted stuff around and tidied up your bug list, without actually making anything better. Should I conclude that the policy team does not actually want DEP5 in its package? If so, say it, rather than push it around your plate. I could just put this on the DEP website, or wiki.debian.org, and be done with it. In fact, perhaps I should just do that instead. It's not worth having to wait untold months for simple website updates. -- Freedom-based blog/wiki/web hosting: http://www.branchable.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature