[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#682282: marked as done (document syntax of Vcs-Cvs field)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o.fsf@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #682282,
regarding document syntax of Vcs-Cvs field
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.)


-- 
682282: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682282
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.3.1
Severity: wishlist
Control: block -1 by 654958
X-Debbugs-Cc: "Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org>, cvs@packages.debian.org

Hi,

Bernhard R. Link wrote[1]:

>> +		<p>
>> +		  The field name identifies the VCS. The field's value uses the
>> +		  version control system's conventional syntax for describing
>> +		  repository locations and should be sufficient to locate the
>> +		  repository used for packaging. Ideally, it also locates the
>> +		  branch used for development of new versions of the Debian
>> +		  package.
>> +		</p>
>> +		<p>
>> +		  In the case of Git, the value consists of a URL, optionally
>> +		  followed by the word <tt>-b</tt> and the name of a branch in
>> +		  the indicated repository, following the syntax of the
>> +		  <tt>git clone</tt> command.  If no branch is specified, the
>> +		  packaging should be on the default branch.
>> +		</p>
>
> Why only document git and not the syntax of the other fields?
>
> cvs: a identifier suiteable for cvs -d (i.e. usually starting with :pserver:),
> followed by an optional module name (seperated by a space).
>
> I think it might also make sense to explicitly request that the fields should
> describe an anonymous checkout.

Thanks.  Filing so it's not forgetten.  (If someone wants to prepare
an exact paragraph that can be cut-and-pasted into policy, all the
better, of course.)

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/654958#134

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
control: user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: