Bug#567845: debian-policy: broken formatting of upgrading-checklist.txt?
Salvatore Bonaccorso
Version: 3.8.4.0
Severity: minor
Hi
I noticed, with the current upload of the debian-policy the file
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz seems to have
a broken 'formatting'. E.g. previously we had:
* Added parallel=n to the standardized DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS tags,
indicating that a package should be built using up to n parallel
processes if the package supports it [4.9.1]
now we have
+ *4.9.1*: Added parallel=n to the standardized DEB\_BUILD\_OPTIONS tags,
indicating that a package should be built using up to n parallel
processes if the package supports it
It seems something broke on generation of that. The html variant seems
ok.
p.s.: didn't found an already filled bugreport about that.
Bests
Salvatore
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
debian-policy depends on no packages.
debian-policy recommends no packages.
Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
pn doc-base <none> (no description available)
-- no debconf information
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Bill Allombert
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.4.0
> Severity: minor
>
> Hi
>
> I noticed, with the current upload of the debian-policy the file
> /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz seems to have
> a broken 'formatting'. E.g. previously we had:
>
> * Added parallel=n to the standardized DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS tags,
> indicating that a package should be built using up to n parallel
> processes if the package supports it [4.9.1]
>
> now we have
>
> + *4.9.1*: Added parallel=n to the standardized DEB\_BUILD\_OPTIONS tags,
> indicating that a package should be built using up to n parallel
> processes if the package supports it
>
> It seems something broke on generation of that. The html variant seems
> ok.
Hello Salvatore,
I checked this file before uploading the package but I thought this was
the expected behavior of the formatter. In any case, I agree this is quite
ugly and I have converted the org file to debiandoc-sgml which generate
much nicer text files.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ball...@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bill Allombert
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 08:06:24PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 3.8.4.0
> > Severity: minor
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I noticed, with the current upload of the debian-policy the file
> > /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz seems to have
> > a broken 'formatting'. E.g. previously we had:
> >
> > * Added parallel=n to the standardized DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS tags,
> > indicating that a package should be built using up to n parallel
> > processes if the package supports it [4.9.1]
> >
> > now we have
> >
> > + *4.9.1*: Added parallel=n to the standardized DEB\_BUILD\_OPTIONS tags,
> > indicating that a package should be built using up to n parallel
> > processes if the package supports it
> >
> > It seems something broke on generation of that. The html variant seems
> > ok.
>
> Hello Salvatore,
> I checked this file before uploading the package but I thought this was
> the expected behavior of the formatter. In any case, I agree this is quite
> ugly and I have converted the org file to debiandoc-sgml which generate
> much nicer text files.
I created a git branch 'bug567845-ballombe' that change policy to use
upgrading-checklist.sgml. Please comment.
Bill Allombert
> Hi Bill
>
> > > Hello Salvatore,
> > > I checked this file before uploading the package but I thought this was
> > > the expected behavior of the formatter. In any case, I agree this is quite
> > > ugly and I have converted the org file to debiandoc-sgml which generate
> > > much nicer text files.
> >
> > I created a git branch 'bug567845-ballombe' that change policy to use
> > upgrading-checklist.sgml. Please comment.
>
> Thank you. I will - if I can find some free time for it - have a look
> at this new git branch. If it generates nicer text files it is great.
> Do you have already somewhere the generated text file from it?
Thanks, I have made them available at:
<http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/policy/>
Cheers,
Bill.
Salvatore Bonaccorso
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 01:59:14PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:59:23AM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Hi Bill
> >
> > > > Hello Salvatore,
> > > > I checked this file before uploading the package but I thought this was
> > > > the expected behavior of the formatter. In any case, I agree this is quite
> > > > ugly and I have converted the org file to debiandoc-sgml which generate
> > > > much nicer text files.
> > >
> > > I created a git branch 'bug567845-ballombe' that change policy to use
> > > upgrading-checklist.sgml. Please comment.
> >
> > Thank you. I will - if I can find some free time for it - have a look
> > at this new git branch. If it generates nicer text files it is great.
> > Do you have already somewhere the generated text file from it?
>
> Thanks, I have made them available at:
> <http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/policy/>
It looks much better, thank you for your improvements! (I personally
will miss the 'old' layout, which takes less space/was more copact and
had the references on the right side, but the new one is fine too).
Bests
Salvatore
Bill Allombert
> Hi Bill
> > <http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/policy/>
>
> It looks much better, thank you for your improvements! (I personally
> will miss the 'old' layout, which takes less space/was more copact and
> had the references on the right side, but the new one is fine too).
Hello policy editors,
Any objection with applying branch bug567845-ballombe and fix this bug ?
Also I would like to release policy 3.4.1 or 3.5.0 depending of your
preference soon.
Russ Allbery
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:12:39PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> It looks much better, thank you for your improvements! (I personally
>> will miss the 'old' layout, which takes less space/was more copact and
>> had the references on the right side, but the new one is fine too).
> Hello policy editors,
> Any objection with applying branch bug567845-ballombe and fix this bug ?
No, please, go ahead.
> Also I would like to release policy 3.4.1 or 3.5.0 depending of your
> preference soon.
3.8.4.1 I think you mean. I don't think we have any normative changes
since the last release, so I think that would be the right version number.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Bill Allombert
> Bill Allombert <Bill.Al...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:12:39PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>
> >> It looks much better, thank you for your improvements! (I personally
> >> will miss the 'old' layout, which takes less space/was more copact and
> >> had the references on the right side, but the new one is fine too).
>
> > Hello policy editors,
>
> > Any objection with applying branch bug567845-ballombe and fix this bug ?
>
> No, please, go ahead.
Done.
> > Also I would like to release policy 3.4.1 or 3.5.0 depending of your
> > preference soon.
>
> 3.8.4.1 I think you mean. I don't think we have any normative changes
> since the last release, so I think that would be the right version number.
Are there other changes pending beside #566220 ?
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ball...@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
Russ Allbery
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 03:20:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 3.8.4.1 I think you mean. I don't think we have any normative changes
>> since the last release, so I think that would be the right version
>> number.
> Are there other changes pending beside #566220 ?
Probably, but nothing that I've analyzed enough to know that it should go
in. I'm unfortunately way behind on processing Policy work at the moment.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--