On 2021-12-27 17:54:24 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The sort of case I have in mind is an 'RRR: no'%e package that does not
> FTBFS when built as root, but does do so as non-root. I agree that
> that's an FTBFS bug, but is it release-critical? For a relatively new
> feature like RRR, I'm not
Your message dated Mon, 27 Dec 2021 17:54:24 -0700
with message-id <87mtkly2f3@melete.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#1002626: debian-policy: building packages should not
require to be root
has caused the Debian Bug report #1002626,
regarding When Rules-Require-Root: no, packages
Simon McVittie writes:
> I believe the intention is to automate this pattern, which a lot of
> packages with shared libraries are already using:
> Source: dbus
> Package: dbus
> Description: simple interprocess messaging system (system message bus)
> D-Bus is a message bus,
Nicholas D Steeves writes:
> The following is only Informational level, but the existence of
> Lintian's "duplicate-long-description" tag suggests that producing
> duplicate bin:Descriptions in bin:libfoo and bin:foo packages is not
> ideal, thus a straight copy from src:Description is not
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 15:08:03 -0700, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> The following is only Informational level, but the existence of
> Lintian's "duplicate-long-description" tag suggests that producing
> duplicate bin:Descriptions in bin:libfoo and bin:foo packages is not
> ideal, thus a straight
Hi!
Reply follows inline,
Mattia Rizzolo writes:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 01:20:14PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> In that case, returning to Mattia's patch, it is probably not correct to
>> say that the source Description is relevant for all binary packages,
>> because perhaps the substvar
Mattia Rizzolo writes:
> |+When used in a source control file in the general paragraph (i.e., the
> |+first one, for the source package), the text in this field is used to
> |+describe the source package itself, and consequently all of the binary
> |+packages built from itself.
What if we just
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 01:20:14PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> In that case, returning to Mattia's patch, it is probably not correct to
> say that the source Description is relevant for all binary packages,
> because perhaps the substvar is used for some but not all of them?
Mh, we probably
Sean Whitton writes:
> I said that the requirement is only advisory based on how there is no
> requirement on packages expressed must/should/etc. in the description of
> Rules-Requires-Root: no in Policy. The target of the advice would be
> authors and maintainers of package builders.
>
Hello Guillem, Mattia,
On Fri 24 Dec 2021 at 01:42PM +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 17:53:31 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>
>> Is there really no name for the first paragraph other than "general
>> paragraph"?
>
> That's how the dpkg documentation (man and perl modules POD)
Hello Russ,
On Sat 25 Dec 2021 at 06:45PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>> On 2021-12-25 14:48:33 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>
Here, the build via "debuild" is failing even when fakeroot is
available (installed on the machine). Note
11 matches
Mail list logo
