control: tag -1 -patch +pending
I too second the following change proposed by Bill:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 404dc73..f9fdbf7 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -6955,12 +6955,13 @@ Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
>
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:00:51 +0200 Bill Allombert
wrote:
>[...]
>
> OK, here a new patch.
>
> Seconds welcome!
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Bill.
>
> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Hi,
I second the following change proposed by Bill:
> diff --git
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:21:13AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
We should document that to prevent /lib64 to be used for wrong purpose.
In any case I'm not quite sure whether shipping files in lib64 in amd64
packages
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
In any case I'm not quite sure whether shipping files in lib64 in amd64
packages (juffed/juffed-dev and zynaddsubfx-dssi do this now) is OK.
I only found
zynaddsubfx-dssi: /usr/lib64/dssi/libzynaddsubfx_dssi.so
which I think
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 02:01:13PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:45:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
This is the relevant part of the FHS (ill-advised imho, but required by the
LSB):
-
6.1.5. /lib64 and /lib32 :
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:45:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
This is the relevant part of the FHS (ill-advised imho, but required by the
LSB):
-
6.1.5. /lib64 and /lib32 : 64/32-bit libraries (architecture dependent)
The 64-bit architectures
Le Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
We should document that to prevent /lib64 to be used for wrong purpose.
In any case I'm not quite sure whether shipping files in lib64 in amd64
packages (juffed/juffed-dev and zynaddsubfx-dssi do this now) is OK.
I only
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 09:52:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:55:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
According to apt-file, prohibiting to install files into /lib64 and
/usr/lib64
on amd64
user debian-pol...@lists.debian.org
tag 630174 + patch
usertags 630174 + normative
thanks
Le Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 04:28:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:58:02PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:55:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 04:28:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:58:02PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here is a patch.
According to
Le Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 09:52:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:55:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
According to apt-file, prohibiting to install files into /lib64 and
/usr/lib64
on amd64 would make only one package RC-buggy, juffed, in its experimental
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:58:02PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
/usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
location. However, due to
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
/usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
location. However, due to the way Debian handles this (with symlinks),
bad things happen in terms of
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
/usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
location. However, due to the way Debian handles this (with symlinks),
bad things happen in
14 matches
Mail list logo