tag 698030 pending
thanks
Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 10:11:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
How about this patch?
diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml
index 0347cd66..a41bc1fd 100644
--- i/policy.sgml
+++ w/policy.sgml
@@ -158,6 +158,14
Hi,
In January, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think we should probably say explicitly that they don't follow all of
the requirements laid out in this document.
How about this patch?
diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml
index 0347cd66..a41bc1fd 100644
--- i/policy.sgml
+++ w/policy.sgml
@@ -158,6
Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:22:08AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
+
+ p
+ udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
+ not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the
+ url name=Debian Installer internals manual
+
Hi,
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:22:08AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
+
+p
+ udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
+ not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the
+ url name=Debian Installer
Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 02:00:35AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:22:08AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
+
+ p
+udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
+not comply with all of the requirements
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com (09/03/2013):
In January, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think we should probably say explicitly that they don't follow all of
the requirements laid out in this document.
How about this patch?
diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml
index 0347cd66..a41bc1fd
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
How about this patch?
diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml
index 0347cd66..a41bc1fd 100644
--- i/policy.sgml
+++ w/policy.sgml
@@ -158,6 +158,14 @@
distributed in some other way or is intended for local use
only.
/p
+
Charles Plessy wrote:
actually the only section of the Policy that currently contains the string
'udeb' is 8.6.4.2 about the shlibs system (plus some occurences in
introductory
parts earlier in the chapter 8). No bug in our list mention udeb either.
I therefore am filing this new bug so
Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:13:04AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
I don't think policy should define how udebs work. The entire
installer is maintained by the d-i team, and it seems best if they
have freedom to change how it works without changing any documentation
maintained by other
Charles Plessy wrote:
If you think that it is necessary to obtain the agreement of the d-i team to
mention the udebs in #697433, please go ahead, but on my side, I do not think
that there is a problem here.
I guess I'm completely failing to communicate.
udebs are already documented very
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (13/01/2013):
I think that describing the udebs would fit with that goal.
For the record: no objection.
This said, it can not be done without the active participation of
the d-i team, which I do not want to bother now.
ACK.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:44:33AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
If you think that it is necessary to obtain the agreement of the d-i team to
mention the udebs in #697433, please go ahead, but on my side, I do not
think
that there is a problem here.
I guess I'm
Bill Allombert wrote:
In that case there could be a udeb subpolicy document maintained by the
d-i team that policy would refer to.
Yeah, that would be fine with me, even though I still don't see the
point.
Is there a git subpolicy describing how git is packaged? A gnome
subpolicy about
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:35:36AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
In that case there could be a udeb subpolicy document maintained by the
d-i team that policy would refer to.
Yeah, that would be fine with me, even though I still don't see the
point.
Is there a
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Yet I'm getting a lot of resistance to the suggestion. Why? What am I
missing?
I think it's perfectly reasonble, even quite valuable, to include a clear
statement in Policy that it doesn't cover udebs and they have their own
guidelines. I didn't
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org (13/01/2013):
It makes sense to me to add such a statement now and then circle
back to possibly document the details of udebs (and, if so, remove
that statement) at a later date when the d-i team has more time.
Definitely.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description:
Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:35:36AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
What I am concerned about is that the next release of policy should not
include wording that requires people to make a decision between ignoring what
policy says and filing RC bugs about, e.g., udebs not including changelogs.
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
How about the following change to the first paragraph of section 1.1 ?
This manual describes the policy requirements for the Debian
distribution. This includes the structure and
contents of the Debian archive and several
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:35:36AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
In that case there could be a udeb subpolicy document maintained by the
d-i team that policy would refer to.
Yeah, that would be fine with me, even though I still don't see the
point.
Is there a git
Russ Allbery wrote:
I vote for just calling them udebs instead of micro binary packages.
The latter sounds more formal, but I don't think anyone calls them that in
practice, so it may be confusing. Perhaps:
udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) are
not
Steve Langasek wrote:
The installer team are consulted on the
question of which packages should be made available as udebs, but for shared
libraries the maintenance of the udeb definitely lies with the library
maintainer, not the installer team. So it makes
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Le Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:27:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
We already talk about udeb in various places (shlibs, for instance). This
isn't a new problem.
Hi Russ and everybody,
actually the only section of the Policy that currently contains
22 matches
Mail list logo
